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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 26 studies in Clinical safety (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 26 studies tagged home — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

Other subjects

Authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

What “Clinical safety” covers

Clinical safety — Risks that come up in real-world dementia care: drug side effects, delirium, swallowing problems and other hospital-level harms.

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.

Optimizing function and physical activity among nursing home residents with dementia: testing the impact of function-focused care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2013-10-03

Purpose of the study The purpose of this study was to test the impact of Function-Focused Care for the Cognitively Impaired Intervention on nursing home residents with dementia and the nursing assistants who care for them. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 103 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Mortality Prediction in Selecting Patients With Dementia for Earlier Palliative Care Interventions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA network open 2019-07-03

A deep learning algorithm based on patient demographic information and longitudinal clinical notes appeared to show promising results in predicting mortality among patients with dementia in different time frames. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Improving decision-making for feeding options in advanced dementia: a randomized, controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2011-09-15

A decision aid about feeding options in advanced dementia reduced decisional conflict for surrogates and increased their knowledge and communication about feeding options with providers. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Maintaining independence at home after a fall: a process evaluation of the MAINTAIN multicomponent intervention for people living with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2025-08-29

The MAINTAIN intervention demonstrated high fidelity in home assessments and intervention delivery, with participants receiving a mean of 15 of the 22 available sessions with a range of 5-25 sessions. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

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

“There is always a reason why someone is doing something”: The importance of life history and personhood when supporting people with dementia to “wander” in care homes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Dementia 2025-01-27

Up to 60% of people living with dementia who reside in care homes will ‘wander’ at some point. 1 key finding →

Participants: 19 Evidence: low

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

In-Home Assistive Technology May Help Protect Dementia Caregivers from Declining Sleep Efficiency: A Randomized Control Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Clinical Gerontologist 2025-05-21

Caregivers in the control conditions reported significantly worsening sleep efficiency whereas in comparison, those in the active conditions reported improving sleep efficiency. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Guiding the Ethics of Locator Devices in Dementia Care: Tutorial on Developing a Question-Based Ethical Framework

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2026-07-07

The resulting framework is organized around 3 themes-vision, process, and impact-each containing guiding questions that encourage dialogical reflection and decision-making. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The continuous learning needs of personal support workers who care for people living with dementia in long-term care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Educational Gerontology 2025-06-07

Personal support workers (PSWs) in long-term care (LTC) homes provide the most care to people living with dementia, yet receive the least education compared to other healthcare professionals. 1 key finding →

Participants: 39 Evidence: low

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

Change in Fall Status of Older People With Dementia and Caregiving Difficulties: Moderation Effects of Living Arrangements

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2025-03-24

For co-residing care partners, high (p = 0.001), increased (p = 0.001), and decreased (p = 0.001) fall frequency over 2 years was significantly associated with emotional difficulties. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Supportive Interventions Involving Family Carers of Patients With Delirium Superimposed on Dementia in Hospital: A Scoping Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. International Journal of Older People Nursing 2025-02-22

Fifteen papers were included. Studies focused on educational and system change to improve the care of people with DSD. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Psychotropic medications versus non-pharmacologic approaches for managing behavioural and psychological symptoms in Australian aged care residents with dementia: general practitioners’ and physicians’ perspectives

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology 2025-10-28

Four GPs and eleven physicians were interviewed, and four major themes emerged: (1) knowledge of best practices of BPSD management, (2) awareness of current challenges in BPSD management, (3) non-involvement, blame shifting and rationalisation: perceived reasons for the current challenges and (4) suggested solutions. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Managing medications: the role of informal caregivers of older adults and people living with dementia. A review of the literature

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of clinical nursing 2013-12-20

Responsibility for managing medications for older adults and/or people living with dementia in the community often falls to informal caregivers. 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The Impact of Dementia Caregiving on the Health of the Spousal Caregiver

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Medicina 2026-04-21

Evidence suggests that chronic caregiving stress contributes to biological changes such as immune dysregulation, inflammation, acceleration, aging, and potential cognitive decline in caregivers themselves. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

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

Behavioral Challenges and Adaptive Strategies in Providing Mealtime Care to Residents With Dementia: A Qualitative Study of Nursing Home Clinical and Administrative Staff

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Journal of Applied Gerontology 2025-10-31

This study examined how nursing home staff adapt to challenging mealtime behaviors in residents with dementia, such as turning away or refusing food. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Smart Room Design for Dementia Nursing Home Based on Kano-AHP-QFD Integrated Methodology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. HERD Health Environments Research & Design Journal 2025-08-28

BackgroundWith the growing demand for dementia-friendly care environments, existing smart room designs often lack systematic methods to translate user needs into functional solutions. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

↑ 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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