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 1–25 of 59 studies in Risk factors (page 1 of 3) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 59 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 59 studies tagged palliative — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

What “Risk factors” covers

Risk factors — Conditions, exposures and habits linked to a higher or lower chance of dementia, and how strong each link is.

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.

Prognostic factors for severity and mortality in patients infected with COVID-19: A systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. PloS one 2020-11-17

Identified prognostic factors can help clinicians and policy makers in tailoring management strategies for patients with COVID-19 infectious disease while researchers can utilise our findings to develop multivariable prognostic models that could eventually facilitate decision-making and improve patient important outcomes. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 207 Evidence: high

Practice Guidelines for the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2000-08-01

The of establishing the diagnosis of pneumonia and cause is with the antibiotic studies for of community-acquired studies for of community-acquired The diagnosis of is based on a of clinical and laboratory The diagnosis of is and and as well as disease, congestive heart failure, with pneumonia and cases of and are of do not require and are the of antibiotic antimicrobial is usually for and a chest radiography is usually to establish the diagnosis of examination to or is for detecting pneumonia Chest radiography is considered is for the etiologic the and or conditions. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Preoperative predictors for mortality following hip fracture surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Injury 2011-06-17

Whilst there is no conclusive evidence of the preoperative predictors for mortality following hip fractures, special attention should be paid to the above 12 strong evidence predictors. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 64,316 Evidence: high

Of 6 952 440 vaccinated patients in the derivation cohort, 5 150 310 (74.1%) had two vaccine doses. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This large cohort of 85 year olds showed good levels of both self rated health and functional ability despite significant levels of disease and impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 853 Evidence: moderate

Studies were significantly heterogeneous in terms of country, outcomes assessed, and the timing of post-ED outcome assessments. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 7,940 Evidence: high

We found significant independent associations with overall fracture risk in women for age, body mass index, ethnic origin, alcohol intake, smoking status, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, any cancer, cardiovascular disease, dementia, diagnosis or treatment for epilepsy, history of falls, chronic liver disease, Parkinson's disease, rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus, chronic renal disease, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, previous fracture, endocrine disorders, gastrointestinal malabsorption, any antidepressants, corticosteroids, unopposed hormone replacement therapy, and parental history of osteoporosis. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,142,673 Evidence: moderate

Patterns of chronic multimorbidity in the elderly population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2009-02-01

In persons with multimorbidity, there exists co-occurrence of diseases beyond chance, which clinicians need to take into account in their daily practice. 2 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,099 Evidence: moderate

Risk of Continued Institutionalization After Hospitalization in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series A 2011-10-03

From 1996 through 2008, 5.55% of hospitalized patients resided in a nursing home 6 months later compared with 0.54% of nonhospitalized control patients. 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 762,243 Evidence: moderate

Ageing and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with declines in muscle function and cardiorespiratory fitness, resulting in an impaired capacity to perform daily activities and maintain independent functioning. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Globally, low back pain, migraine, age-related and other hearing loss, iron-deficiency anaemia, and major depressive disorder were the five leading causes of YLDs in 2016, contributing 57·6 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 40·8-75·9 million [7·2%, 6·0-8·3]), 45·1 million (29·0-62·8 million [5·6%, 4·0-7·2]), 36·3 million (25·3-50·9 million [4·5%, 3·8-5·3]), 34·7 million (23·0-49·6 million [4·3%, 3·5-5·2]), and 34·1 million (23·5-46·0 million [4·2%, 3·2-5·3]) of total YLDs, respectively. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

We believe this information important when counseling elderly patients regarding the risks of mortality and PJI after TKA and risk-adjusting publicly reported TKA patient outcomes. 2 key findings →

Participants: 83,011 Evidence: low

Exposure to ACH medications is independently and specifically associated with a subsequent increase in delirium symptom severity in elderly medical inpatients with diagnosed delirium. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 278 Evidence: moderate

Geographic Variation in Diagnosis Frequency and Risk of Death Among Medicare Beneficiaries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. JAMA 2011-03-15

Diagnosis frequency ranged across HRRs from 0.58 chronic conditions in Grand Junction, Colorado, to 1.23 in Miami, Florida (mean, 0.90 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.89-0.91]; median, 0.87 [interquartile range, 0.80-0.96]). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

This study confirms that healthy senior citizens as well as senior citizens with underlying medical conditions are at risk for the serious complications of influenza and benefit from vaccination. 2 key findings →

Participants: 20,000 Evidence: low

Review of Safety and Efficacy of Sleep Medicines in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Clinical therapeutics 2016-10-15

Although non-BzRAs have improved safety profiles compared with benzodiazepines, their side effects include dementia, serious injury, and fractures, which should limit their use. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

A comprehensive outcome monitoring system to monitor the quality and safety of care and variation for HCP recipients was developed. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 68 Evidence: low

↑ 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.

1,034 records (3.6% 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