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.

Our random 20% sample included 848,303 fee-for-service Medicare decedents (mean age, 82.3 years; 57.9% female, 88.1% white). 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 270,202 Evidence: moderate

This pilot study was unable to demonstrate a benefit for donepezil in preventing or treating delirium in a relatively young and cognitively-intact group of elderly patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery. 2 key findings →

Participants: 80 Evidence: high

Haloperidol prophylaxis in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. Critical care (London, England) 2013-01-17

Our evaluation study suggests that prophylactic treatment with low dose haloperidol in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium probably has beneficial effects. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 299 Evidence: high

Studies implementing research methods (30 studies) demonstrated the role of family members as both proxy decision-makers and supporting decision-making for the person with impaired capacity. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 19 Evidence: high

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of patients with primarily noncancer illness, palliative care, compared with usual care, was statistically significantly associated with less acute health care use and modestly lower symptom burden, but there was no significant difference in quality of life. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 4,068 Evidence: high

6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2021-01-08

After multivariable adjustment, patients showed an odds ratio (OR) 1·61 (95% CI 0·80-3·25) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 4·60 (1·85-11·48) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for diffusion impairment; OR 0·88 (0·66-1·17) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and OR 1·77 (1·05-2·97) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for anxiety or depression, and OR 0·74 (0·58-0·96) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 2·69 (1·46-4·96) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for fatigue or muscle weakness. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate

Reducing delirium after hip fracture: a randomized trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2001-05-01

Delirium (or acute confusional state) affects 35% to 65% of patients after hip-fracture repair, and has been independently associated with poor functional recovery. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 62 Evidence: high

The use of light propofol sedation decreased the prevalence of postoperative delirium by 50% compared with deep sedation. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 114 Evidence: high

Age and frailty are independently associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,711 Evidence: moderate

Faster alleviation of delirium and improved cognition justify good, comprehensive geriatric care for these patients although treatment produced no significant improvements in hard endpoints of prognosis. 4 key findings →

Participants: 87 Evidence: high

We collected a total of 29 prospective studies for the systematic literature review and meta-analysis. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 29 Evidence: high

A lower proportion of patients with cancer had palliative care initiated in the home (16 088 [14.5%]) compared with patients with chronic organ failure (6904 [32.8%]; absolute difference, -18.3%) or dementia (3922 [27.9%]; absolute difference, -13.4%). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 709 Evidence: moderate

These findings highlight the potential benefits of palliative care in some non-cancer illnesses. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,936 Evidence: moderate

The large number of well-characterized candidate facilities enabled several unique design features including stratification on historical hospitalization rates, randomization prior to recruitment, and 2:1 control to intervention facilities ratio. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 119 Evidence: high

The study cohort included 568 patients (289 [50.9%] men; mean [SD] age, 70.5 [16.1] years) who died in the hospital or were discharged to hospice. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 568 Evidence: moderate

Goals-of-care documentation during the intervention phase occurred among 3744 of 6023 patients (62.2%) compared with 2396 of 4779 patients (50.1%) in the usual care phase (P Conclusions and relevance In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial of older adults, a GOC video intervention delivered by PCEs resulted in higher rates of GOC documentation compared with usual care, including among Black or African American individuals, Hispanic or Latino individuals, non-English speakers, and people living with Alzheimer disease and related dementias. 3 key findings →

Participants: 802 Evidence: high

Little is known on how risk factors of younger cohorts will play out in the future burden of multi-morbidity (two or more concurrent long-term conditions). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 303,589 Evidence: moderate

Compared with the reference standard for diagnosing delirium, 2 study nurses using the CAM-ICU had sensitivities of 100% and 93%, specificities of 98% and 100%, and high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.99). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 111 Evidence: moderate

As with incidences, HRs were higher in patients who had more severe COVID-19 (eg, those admitted to ITU compared with those who were not: 1·58, 1·50-1·67, for any diagnosis; 2·87, 2·45-3·35, for any first diagnosis). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 379 Evidence: moderate

Subjective caregiver burden is a significant risk factor for depressive symptoms in carers of older people and may precipitate clinical depression. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 56 Evidence: high

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