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 176–200 of 369 studies · free to read (page 8 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.

The aim of this study is to establish the existing relationship among variables referred to the person, specifically age and gender, and the functional dependence in basic ADL and in IADL, as well as the possible relationship it has with the increase of morbidity and mortality in a random sample of 598 individuals older than 65 years. 1 key finding →

Participants: 598 Evidence: low

Patients with CLTI undergoing peripheral vascular intervention from 2017 to 2018 were derived from the Medicare-linked VQI (Vascular Quality Initiative) registry. 5 key findings →

Participants: 114 Evidence: moderate

We identified all participants in the UK Biobank cohort study diagnosed with HF prior to enrolment or during follow-up, who had disease occurrence data available from both primary and secondary care records (n = 9824). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,824 Evidence: moderate

By 12 months after discharge, of those discharged with new or additional ADL disability, 41.3% died, 28.6% were alive but had not recovered to baseline function, and 30.1% were at baseline function. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Surrogates were accurate in the majority of cases, made errors in 12% to 22% of cases, and were uncertain in 11% to 16% of cases. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Delirium is a common and serious clinical condition that is associated with several adverse, and sometimes permanent outcomes. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

A total of 24,043 patients were included, with 2,662 (11.07%) in the ND group. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 24,043 Evidence: moderate

These findings demonstrate that early life experiences influence the trajectory of cognitive aging. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

IoT Wearable Sensors and Devices in Elderly Care: A Literature Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 2020-05-16

The increasing ageing global population is causing an upsurge in ailments related to old age, primarily dementia and Alzheimer's disease, frailty, Parkinson's, and cardiovascular disease, but also a general need for general eldercare as well as active and healthy ageing. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

By 2040 more people in Scotland are projected to die with palliative care needs, and the complexity of need will increase markedly. 3 key findings →

Participants: 34 Evidence: low

Odds ratios for death, dementia, and delirium using anticholinergic-polypharmacy pseudoscales (median = 1.09-1.10) were greater than those of general-polypharmacy pseudoscales (1.05-1.06). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The DSM-5 criteria, level of arousal and delirium diagnosis: inclusiveness is safer

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. BMC medicine 2014-10-08

Altered consciousness has been regarded as a core feature of delirium; the fact that consciousness itself should be physiologically disrupted due to acute illness attests to its clinical urgency. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

When compared to edentulous elderly patients, patients with remaining teeth were younger at admittance, were more often non-cooperative, and had a poorer oral health and higher need for dental care. 5 key findings →

Participants: 725 Evidence: low

TBI had the highest percentage (37%) compared to other conditions, which may be attributed to the prevalent challenge of cognitive impairment in TBI in addition to physical disability. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,285 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