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 476–500 of 866 studies (page 20 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.

Medicare's Annual Wellness Visit in a Large Health Care Organization: Who Is Using It?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Annals of Internal Medicine 2015-10-05

This benefit is being offered at no cost to eligible Medicare recipients; however, recent reports suggest that few persons are taking advantage of it (1–3) and who is using it is unclear. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Physicians in Supporting Roles in Chronic Disease Care: The CareMore Model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2011-01-01

In most of these nonacademic healthcare delivery systems, traditional randomized clinical trial designs to evaluate effectiveness are too rigid, too expensive, and take too long to achieve results. 5 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: high

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

Delirium prevalence, diagnostic uncertainty and outcomes in ORCHARD-EPR: validation against prospective reference cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2025-08-29

Among 18 614 ORCHARD-EPR patients (mean/SD age = 82.9/7.4 years, dementia = 20%), certain delirium (delirium = yes or ICD-10 delirium code) was present in 3077/18 614 (17%,95%CI 16%-17%) of whom 1199/3077 (39%) had dementia, and uncertain delirium (delirium = uncertain and no ICD-10 code) in 2007 (11%,10%-11%) of whom 773/2007 (39%) had dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 731 Evidence: low

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

Additional hospitalization costs associated with delirium among older adults: evidence from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Frontiers in Public Health 2026-01-28

In a sample of 2,599 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age 78.4 years, 52.9% female, 81.8% White), we identified a total of 5,677 hospitalization claims. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,677 Evidence: low

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

The genetic architecture of postoperative delirium after major surgery and its relationship with nonpostoperative neurocognitive conditions: A genome-wide association study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. PLoS Medicine 2026-03-02

A case-control GWAS was performed in the UK Biobank to identify genetic variants associated with postoperative delirium, adjusted for age, sex, genetic chip, and the first 10 principal components. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

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

Co-designing a framework to communicate patient-centred outcomes in palliative care: involving patients and the public to reframe understanding

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes 2026-02-21

Eighteen members of the public-including patients, carers, and individuals with lived experience of both roles-along with two local board members and one representative from a statutory health and social care body, participated and were actively involved in developing the framework and co-producing outputs through structured small-group discussions. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Antihypertensive Deprescribing and Functional Status in VA Long‐Term Care Residents With and Without Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2025-01-03

In long-term care residents, ADL scores worsened by a mean of 0.29 points (95%CI = 0.27, 0.31) per 3 months and antihypertensive deprescribing did not impact this worsening (difference between groups -0.04 points every 3 months, 95%CI = -0.15, 0.06). 5 key findings →

Participants: 12,238 Evidence: low

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

Advance Care Planning and End-of-Life Care in Elderly: A Twenty-Four Month Cohort of Three Hundred and Fifty-Eight Patients with Serious Advanced Illness Advance Care Planning Cascade, Goals-of-Care Concordance, and Determinants Across Four Frailty Strata

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) 2026-06-10

End-of-life care in elderly patients with serious advanced illness sits at the intersection of patient autonomy, family involvement, clinical judgment, and resource allocation. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 358 Evidence: moderate

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

Methodology of China's national study on the evaluation, early recognition, and treatment of psychological problems in the elderly: the China Longitudinal Aging Study (CLAS)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Shanghai archives of psychiatry 2013-04-01

Cognitive and depressive disorders are common in elderly Chinese and are becoming an increasingly important public health problem, partly because of the rapid aging of the population. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Importance of diffuse aspiration bronchiolitis caused by chronic occult aspiration in the elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Chest 1996-11-01

Diffuse aspiration bronchiolitis (DAB) is a new term that we proposed to define a clinical entity that is characterized by a chronic inflammation of bronchioles caused by recurrent aspiration of foreign particles. 3 key findings →

Participants: 31 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Perspectives on care at the close of life. Serving patients who may die soon and their families: the role of hospice and other services

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. JAMA 2001-02-01

The case story of a 47-year-old man with advanced rectal carcinoma illustrates the professional services and care system strategies available to help clinicians serve patients coming to the end of life. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Place of Death: Trends Over the Course of a Decade: A Population-Based Study of Death Certificates From the Years 2001 and 2011

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Deutsches Arzteblatt international 2015-07-01

Most people in Germany die in institutions; the most common place of death is still the hospital, where more than half of all deaths take place. 2 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Advance care planning and dying in nursing homes in Flanders, Belgium: a nationwide survey

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of pain and symptom management 2012-08-20

Prevalence of ACPs and formal authorization of a legal representative was low among the deceased NH residents in Flanders, Belgium. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Use of antipsychotics in Denmark 1997-2018: a nation-wide drug utilisation study with focus on off-label use and associated diagnoses

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences 2021-04-06

We aimed to explore diagnoses associated with antipsychotic use, treatment patterns and characteristics of users without diagnoses relevant to antipsychotic treatment. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

From across this tag

9 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 9. The same 9 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