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 226–250 of 630 studies in Clinical safety (page 10 of 26) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

Other 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.

What “Clinical safety” covers

Clinical safety — Risks that come up in real-world dementia care: drug side effects, delirium, swallowing problems and other hospital-level harms.

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.

Pain, agitation, and delirium practices in Chinese intensive care units: A national multicenter survey study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Chinese Medical Journal 2025-10-24

To the Editor: The standardized management of pain–agitation–delirium (PAD) represents a fundamental component of clinical practice in intensive care units (ICUs).[1] Evidence-based analgesia and sedation strategies not only alleviate patients’ physiological discomfort and psychological distress, but also significantly reduce mechanical ventilation duration, improve long-term prognosis, and optimize healthcare resource allocation.[1,2] Equally crucial is delirium management, as evidenced by studies demonstrating that delirium duration independently predicts mortality risk, hospital stay length, healthcare expenditures, and acquired dementia incidence.[3] Although existing studies have explored PAD management practices, most rely on clinicians’ subjective recall that may distort objective clinical realities and fail to reflect distinctive characteristics.[4] Therefore, this nationwide multicenter cross-sectional study, initiated by the Critical Care Analgesia and Sedation Quality Control Subspecialty Group under the China National Center for Medical Quality Control in Critical Care Medicine, aims to investigate the current status of PAD management in China. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,627 Evidence: moderate

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

Initiation and persistence of warfarin or aspirin in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation in general practice: do the appropriate patients receive stroke prophylaxis?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH 2008-06-28

The low likelihood of patients with cAF in general practice remaining on treatment long-term indicates that not all benefits as observed in clinical trials may be achieved in usual clinical practice. 4 key findings →

Participants: 41 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Interrelationship of oral health status, swallowing function, nutritional status, and cognitive ability with activities of daily living in Japanese elderly people receiving home care services due to physical disabilities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Community dentistry and oral epidemiology 2012-08-30

A lower number of teeth are positively related to swallowing dysfunction, whereas denture wearing contributes to recovery of swallowing function. 3 key findings →

Participants: 286 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Frailty and Mortality in Hospitalized Older Adults With COVID-19: Retrospective Observational Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2020-06-09

Although their prognosis is worse, even the oldest and most severely frail patients may benefit from hospitalization for COVID-19, if sufficient resources are available. 5 key findings →

Participants: 48 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

A longitudinal study of drivers with Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2008-01-23

This study confirms previous reports of potentially hazardous driving in persons with early Alzheimer disease, but also indicates that some individuals with very mild dementia can continue to drive safely for extended periods of time. 3 key findings →

Participants: 128 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Neural substrates of vulnerability to postsurgical delirium as revealed by presurgical diffusion MRI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2016-02-26

Despite the significant impact of postoperative delirium on surgical outcomes and the long-term prognosis of older patients, its neural basis has not yet been clarified. 3 key findings →

Participants: 136 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Behavioral and psychologic symptoms in different types of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi 2006-07-01

A strategy of targeting type-specific BPSD may be beneficial, such as environmental stimulus control for DLB patients who are prone to have hallucinations, design of a pacing path for patients with FTD who need support for symptoms of wandering and emotional support for patients with VaD who are susceptible to depression. 1 key finding →

Participants: 137 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The stress response to surgery and postoperative delirium: evidence of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis hyperresponsiveness and decreased suppression of the GH/IGF-1 Axis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology 2013-07-17

Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis hyperresponsiveness and a less frequent suppression of the GH/IGF-1 axis in response to acute stress are possibly involved in delirium pathophysiology. 2 key findings →

Participants: 101 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Potentially inappropriate medications defined by STOPP criteria and the risk of adverse drug events in older hospitalized patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Archives of internal medicine 2011-06-01

STOPP criteria PIMs, unlike Beers criteria PIMs, are significantly associated with avoidable ADEs in older people that cause or contribute to urgent hospitalization. 5 key findings →

Participants: 600 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Palmitoylethanolamide and Luteolin in Brain Aging and Cognitive Decline: Biological Rationale and Current Evidence

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Nutrients 2026-07-29

Cognitive decline is closely associated with biological aging and with interconnected processes, including chronic low-grade inflammation, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and cellular senescence. 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Clinical Symptom Responses to Atypical Antipsychotic Medications in Alzheimer’s Disease: Phase 1 Outcomes From the CATIE-AD Effectiveness Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. American Journal of Psychiatry 2008-06-02

In relation to placebo, the last observation in phase 1 showed greater improvement with olanzapine or risperidone on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory total score, risperidone on the Clinical Global Impression of Changes, olanzapine and risperidone on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) hostile suspiciousness factor, and risperidone on the BPRS psychosis factor. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 421 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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