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

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.

Exercise therapy for the treatment of delirium in the intensive care unit

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2025-08-12

Outcomes of interest were duration of delirium, health-related quality of life, delirium severity, cognitive function, mortality in the ICU, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay and adverse events. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 491 Evidence: high

Sixty-six studies met inclusion criteria for the relationship between physical activity and functional independence, and 34 were included with a cognitive function outcome. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Postoperative delirium: a 76-year-old woman with delirium following surgery

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA 2012-07-01

Delirium (acute confusion) complicates 15% to 50% of major operations in older adults and is associated with other major postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, poor functional recovery, institutionalization, dementia, and death. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The study confirms the occurrence of increased incidence of chronic illnesses in long-term cancer survivors attributable to underlying lifestyle and/or cancer treatments. 2 key findings →

Participants: 26,213 Evidence: moderate

Caregiving burden, stress, and health effects among family caregivers of adult cancer patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA 2012-01-01

Unlike professional caregivers such as physicians and nurses, informal caregivers, typically family members or friends, provide care to individuals with a variety of conditions including advanced age, dementia, and cancer. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Long-term exposure to PM 2.5 , NO 2 , and/or BC in Denmark were associated with mortality beyond cardiorespiratory diseases, including diabetes, dementia, psychiatric disorders, asthma, and ALRI. 5 key findings →

Participants: 803,881 Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular death in rheumatoid arthritis: a population-based study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Arthritis and rheumatism 2005-03-01

These results indicate that markers of systemic inflammation confer a statistically significant additional risk for cardiovascular death among patients with RA, even after controlling for traditional cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. 3 key findings →

Participants: 354 Evidence: moderate

About 245 patients were included and postoperative delirium affected 12.2% (30/245) of the patients. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 245 Evidence: moderate

Despite using more home health and hospital services than controls in the baseline preenrollment period, which suggests that they were sicker, participants receiving house calls had 17% lower overall Medicare costs than controls, and there was no indication of poorer quality of care, greater mortality, or underservice. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 9,425 Evidence: high

Thirty-two percent of residents had DNR directives, whereas less than 2% had DNH directives. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,962,742 Evidence: moderate

The SHS global burden increased by 74% between 1990 and 2021 to almost 73·5 million individuals, with population growth accounting for only half of that increase. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Choosing optimal P2Y12 inhibitor in frail older adults is challenging because they are at increased risk of both ischemic and bleeding events. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 11,239 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive and mood disorders were common in elderly hip fracture patients and were associated with greater risk of poor outcomes, both independently and in combination. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Evidence: moderate

In a single center, the ICD-9 code V66.7 had poor sensitivity and high specificity for identifying hospitalized patients who received a palliative care consultation. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The study revealed a higher prevalence of treatment preference discussions and surrogate appointments in the two northern compared to the two southern European countries. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,396 Evidence: low

The results highlight the need to integrate palliative care with optimal disease management in primary practice and to initiate advance care planning early in the chronic disease trajectory to enable all patients to live as well as possible with progressive illness and die with dignity and comfort. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,491 Evidence: low

The upward hospital death trend and fact that being married are risk factors for hospital death suggest that a reliance on hospitals may coexist with a tradition of extended family support. 4 key findings →

Participants: 738,566 Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 862 studies in this tag, 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 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