alzhub.org
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.

Research

30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 351–375 of 867 studies (page 15 of 35) · 30,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 867 studies tagged delirium — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,054 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Multidimensional frailty score for the prediction of postoperative mortality risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. JAMA surgery 2014-07-01

Twenty-five patients (9.1%) died during the follow-up period (median [interquartile range], 13.3 [11.5-16.1] months), including 4 in-hospital deaths after surgery. 2 key findings →

Participants: 275 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Factors associated with rushed and missed resident care in western Canadian nursing homes: a cross-sectional survey of health care aides

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of clinical nursing 2015-07-16

Health care aides frequently report care that is rushed and tasks omitted due to lack of time. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 583 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Risk factors, costs and complications of delayed hospital discharge from internal medicine wards at a Canadian academic medical centre: retrospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. BMC health services research 2019-12-04

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

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Prediction of Postoperative Delirium in Geriatric Hip Fracture Patients: A Clinical Prediction Model Using Machine Learning Algorithms

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation 2021-12-13

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Effect of a Home‐Based Palliative Care Program on Healthcare Use and Costs

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2016-09-02

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Use of Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things, and Edge Intelligence in Long-Term Care for Older People: Comprehensive Analysis Through Bibliometric, Google Trends, and Content Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2025-03-04

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

Participants: 6,378 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Outcomes of Physical and Occupational Therapy Evaluation in the Emergency Department for Older Adults With Falls: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open 2025-05-15

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

Design: cohort study Participants: 266 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The prognostic significance of subsyndromal delirium in elderly medical inpatients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003-06-01

SSD in elderly medical inpatients appears to be a clinically important syndrome that falls on a continuum between no symptoms and DSM-defined delirium. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Survival analysis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding: a worse outcome in patients with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. The American journal of gastroenterology 2000-06-01

This is the first demonstration in the United Kingdom that the mortality of patients with dementia who are fed by gastrostomy is considerable. 3 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Biomarkers associated with delirium in critically ill patients and their relation with long-term subjective cognitive dysfunction; indications for different pathways governing delirium in inflamed and noninflamed patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Critical care (London, England) 2011-12-29

In inflamed patients, the proinflammatory cytokine IL-8 was associated with delirium, whereas in noninflamed patients, antiinflammatory cytokine IL-10 and Aβ1-42/40 were associated with delirium. 5 key findings →

Participants: 46 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

From across this tag

10 of the 863 studies in this tag that have a study page, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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. Show only studies that are free to read

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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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