Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

Showing 151–175 of 369 studies · free to read (page 7 of 15) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 369 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 369 studies tagged palliative — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

A cross-sectional study of geriatric patients was performed to provide a comprehensive description of the prevalence and clinical characteristics of chronic itch affecting Hispanic geriatric subjects in Mexico. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 302 Evidence: low

Geographic Variation in Diagnosis Frequency and Risk of Death Among Medicare Beneficiaries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. JAMA 2011-03-15

Diagnosis frequency ranged across HRRs from 0.58 chronic conditions in Grand Junction, Colorado, to 1.23 in Miami, Florida (mean, 0.90 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.89-0.91]; median, 0.87 [interquartile range, 0.80-0.96]). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

This study included 33,355 patients in the training, 14,294 in the internal validation, and 6711 in the external validation sets. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 33,355 Evidence: moderate

Delirium screening was performed exclusively in patients aged ≥75 years, accounting for 7.3% of all surgical patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 23,100 Evidence: low

Among 2889 patients with delirium (mean age 85 years; 54.7% female), 59.8% were triaged at SETS 1–2 (high priority) and 40.2% at SETS 3–4 (low priority). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,889 Evidence: moderate

We included 17098 records, 4139 from deceased individuals (mean age 81) and 12959 from living individuals (mean age 79). 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 17,098 Evidence: moderate

Among 40,074 inpatient encounters (median age 72 years [IQR 62-82], 46.9% male, 22.7% Black, 4.6% Hispanic), the most common serious illness was heart failure (66.0%), followed by COPD (39.3%), kidney failure (12.4%), cancer (12.3%), and dementia (11.6%). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Delayed discharge is associated with higher hospital costs and complication rates especially nosocomial infections. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The clinical prediction model can play a beneficial role in decision-making for preventative measures for patients at risk of developing a delirium. 3 key findings →

Participants: 207 Evidence: low

Intervention participants in all four disease groups had less hospital use and lower hospital costs nonintervention participants, which drove lower overall healthcare costs. 3 key findings →

Participants: 368 Evidence: low

A total of 6378 papers published between 2014 and 2023 were analyzed. 5 key findings →

Participants: 6,378 Evidence: low

In total, 945 were included patients, and 28.1% (n = 266) had dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 266 Evidence: moderate

Prophylactic oophorectomy in premenopausal women and long-term health

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Menopause international 2008-09-01

The potential adverse effects of prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy on heart health, neurological health, bone health and quality of life should be carefully weighed against its potential benefits for cancer risk reduction in women at average risk of ovarian cancer. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

During the study period, the risk of mortality in hip fracture patients was 3-fold higher than that in the general population and included every major cause of death. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled.

How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped

This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.

  • Journal tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up to 2 pts

Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.

Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.

We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.

The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.

See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 30,980 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.

What this library is — and isn't

This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed    Where this research is being discussed: events