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 151–175 of 866 studies (page 7 of 35) · 27,380 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 866 studies tagged mortality — 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; 12,859 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.

Poststroke delirium incidence and outcomes: validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Critical care medicine 2012-02-01

Measurements and main results Criterion validity and overall accuracy of the Czech version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) were determined using serial daily delirium assessments with CAM-ICU by a junior physician compared with delirium diagnosis by delirium experts using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria that began the first day after stroke onset and continued for at least 7 days. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 129 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Duration of postoperative delirium is an independent predictor of 6-month mortality in older adults after hip fracture

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2014-06-02

In older adults undergoing hip fracture surgery, duration of POD is an important prognostic factor for 6-month mortality. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 199 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Sex Differences in Hip Fracture Surgery: Preoperative Risk Factors for Delirium and Postoperative Outcomes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2016-07-07

Men are at higher risk of postoperative delirium after hip fracture repair than women and have more postoperative surgical complications. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 431 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Subsyndromal delirium in older people: a systematic review of frequency, risk factors, course and outcomes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2012-11-05

SSD in older people may be a frequent and clinically important condition that falls on a continuum between no symptoms and full delirium. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Prediction of appropriate timing of palliative care for older adults with non-malignant life-threatening disease: a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Age and ageing 2005-05-01

Whilst palliative care is appropriate for elderly patients with chronic, non-malignant disease, few of these patients access such care compared with cancer patients. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The economic evidence for advance care planning: Systematic review of evidence

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Palliative medicine 2015-06-09

There is need for clearer articulation of the likely mechanisms by which advance care planning can lead to reduced care costs or improved cost-effectiveness, particularly for people who retain capacity. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The BELFRAIL (BFC80+) study: a population-based prospective cohort study of the very elderly in Belgium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. BMC geriatrics 2010-06-17

The BFC80+ was designed to acquire a better understanding of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of chronic diseases in the very elderly and to study the dynamic interaction between health, frailty and disability in a multi-system approach. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 567 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Family Caregiving at the End of Life and Hospice Use: A National Study of Medicare Beneficiaries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2020-06-30

Older adults at the end of life receive a high number of hours of help at the end of life, many from more than one caregiver, which may shape hospice access. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,868 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

A systematic review of strategies used to increase recruitment of people with cancer or organ failure into clinical trials: implications for palliative care research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of pain and symptom management 2014-12-27

Successful strategies from other disciplines could be considered by palliative care researchers. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Delirium is independently associated with poor functional recovery after hip fracture

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2000-06-01

Delirium is common, persistent, and independently associated with poor functional recovery 1 month after hip fracture even after adjusting for prefracture frailty. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Cause-specific mortality in patients with severe psoriasis: a population-based cohort study in the U.K

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. The British journal of dermatology 2010-09-01

Severe psoriasis is associated with an increased risk of death from a variety of causes, with cardiovascular death being the most common aetiology. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,603 Evidence: moderate

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

Occurrence, associated factors, and outcomes of delirium in patients in an adult acute general medicine service in England: a 10-year longitudinal, observational study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. The Lancet Healthy Longevity 2025-07-01

In those aged 65 years or older, delirium was overall associated (all p<0·001, age and sex adjusted) with dementia ( adj OR 3·63 [95% CI 2·65–4·98]), pre-admission dependency (2·63 [2·02–3·43]), comorbidity burden (1·04 [1·02–1·05]), and frailty (moderate vs low risk 3·62 [2·70–4·85] and high vs low risk 11·85 [7·24–19·42]), with stronger associations in patients without comorbid dementia than in those with comorbid dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 290 Evidence: moderate

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

Comorbidities associated with mortality in 31,461 adults with COVID-19 in the United States: A federated electronic medical record analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. PLoS medicine 2020-09-10

At the beginning of June 2020, there were nearly 7 million reported cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide and over 400,000 deaths in people with COVID-19. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

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