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

27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 226–250 of 866 studies (page 10 of 35) · 27,780 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 palliative — 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; 13,259 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.

Quality of End-of-Life Care Provided to Patients With Different Serious Illnesses

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2016-08-01

Among 57 753 decedents, approximately half of the patients with ESRD, cardiopulmonary failure, or frailty received palliative care consultations (adjusted proportions, 50.4%, 46.7%, and 43.7%, respectively) vs 73.5% of patients with cancer and 61.4% of patients with dementia (P Conclusions and relevance Family-reported quality of end-of-life care was significantly better for patients with cancer and those with dementia than for patients with ESRD, cardiopulmonary failure, or frailty, largely owing to higher rates of palliative care consultation and do-not-resuscitate orders and fewer deaths in the intensive care unit among patients with cancer and those with dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Delirium symptoms in post-acute care: prevalent, persistent, and associated with poor functional recovery

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003-01-01

The data from this study provide strong preliminary evidence that, in patients newly admitted to post-acute care facilities from acute care hospitals, delirium symptoms are prevalent, persistent, and associated with poor functional recovery. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 551 Evidence: moderate

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

Changes in Everyday and Digital Health Technology Use Among Seniors in Declining Health

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2018-03-01

Between 2011 and 2014, seniors experiencing health decline used various digital health technologies at low absolute rates (range: 1%-20%). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 4,037 Evidence: moderate

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

Medicare Advantage Beneficiary Enrollment Decisions Following New Complex Conditions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA Health Forum 2026-08-21

The analytic sample included 1 054 926 beneficiaries, including 219 942 (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [6.3] years; 54.6% female) who developed new complex conditions in 2019 and 834 984 (mean [SD] age, 73.8 [5.6] years; 56.7% female) who did not develop a new complex condition in 2019. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Practical Advice for the Management of Older Adults With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 2025-10-01

These include segmental colitis associated with diverticulitis, colorectal cancer, radiation proctitis, ischemic and infectious colitis, as well as NSAID-induced enterocolitis (6,7). 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 123 Evidence: high

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

Incidence and Risk Factors of Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Patients Following Hip Fracture Surgery: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study in Taiwan

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2025-05-01

The incidence of the first episode of delirium after hip surgery in the elderly was 1.87 events per 1000 PYs. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 118,682 Evidence: moderate

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

Machine learning-based prediction of short- and long-term mortality for shared decision-making in older hip fracture patients: the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit algorithms in 74,396 cases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Acta Orthopaedica 2025-07-07

74,396 patients (median age 84, IQR 78-89; 68% female) were analyzed. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 74,396 Evidence: moderate

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

Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Adult Day Services and the Families They Serve

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias 2021-10-15

The COVID-19 pandemic forced adult day services (ADS) to close and abruptly end in-person services to clients. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 19 Evidence: high

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

How to improve the quality of life of elderly people with intellectual disability: A systematic literature review of support strategies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID 2018-12-21

The studies indicated the importance of funding, provision and organization of services/personnel, education, and cooperation among different support systems. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Palliative care for non-cancer conditions in primary care: a time trend analysis in the UK (2009-2014)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. BMJ supportive & palliative care 2020-01-13

Recording of a palliative care approach for non-cancer conditions has increased since the introduction of the UK End-of-Life Care Strategy, but remains inadequate. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,426 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Palliative care provision in long-term care facilities differs across Europe: Results of a cross-sectional study in six European countries (PACE)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Palliative medicine 2019-07-01

The late initiation of palliative care (especially when advance care planning is lacking) and palliative care for residents without cancer, dementia or closely involved relatives deserve attention in all countries. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,298 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The Mayo Clinic Study of Aging: design and sampling, participation, baseline measures and sample characteristics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neuroepidemiology 2008-02-07

Strengths of the study are that the subjects were randomly selected from a defined population, the majority of the subjects were examined in person, and MCI was defined using published criteria. 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,719 Evidence: moderate

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

Validation of the Delirium Rating Scale-revised-98: comparison with the delirium rating scale and the cognitive test for delirium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences 2001-01-01

The DRS-R-98, a 16-item clinician-rated scale with 13 severity items and 3 diagnostic items, was validated against the Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD), Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI), and Delirium Rating Scale (DRS) among five diagnostic groups (N=68): delirium, dementia, depression, schizophrenia, and other. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate

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

Total and cause-specific mortality in the cardiovascular health study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2009-09-01

In these older adults, associations of risk factors with a given cause of death were related to specific deficits in that same organ system. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,888 Evidence: moderate

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

Reduced employment in caregivers of frail elders: impact of ethnicity, patient clinical characteristics, and caregiver characteristics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2001-11-01

Our goal was to determine the patient and caregiver characteristics associated with the reduction of employment hours in caregivers of frail elders. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,806 Evidence: low

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

Comparing post-acute rehabilitation use, length of stay, and outcomes experienced by Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with hip fracture in the United States: A secondary analysis of administrative data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. PLoS Medicine 2018-06-26

This was a retrospective cohort study to examine differences in health service utilization and outcomes between FFS and MA patients in SNFs following hip fracture hospitalization during the period January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015, and followed up until December 31, 2015. 5 key findings →

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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 (3.7% 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