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 301–325 of 630 studies in Clinical safety (page 13 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.

Delirium risk prediction, healthcare use and mortality of elderly adults in the emergency department

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2014-02-10

This risk prediction rule may help identify a group of individuals in the ED at high risk of developing delirium who should undergo screening, but it requires external validation. 2 key findings →

Participants: 700 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Reliability of the Washington University Road Test. A performance-based assessment for drivers with dementia of the Alzheimer type

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Archives of neurology 1997-06-01

Dementia adversely affects driving performance even in its mild stages, although some persons with DAT seem to drive safely for some time after disease onset. 1 key finding →

Participants: 123 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Lower plasma vitamin E levels are associated with the frailty syndrome: the InCHIANTI study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2006-03-01

Our findings show an association between low circulating levels of one of the most important components of the human antioxidant system and the presence of frailty. 3 key findings →

Participants: 827 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with a mutation in exon 4 of the Cu/Zn superoxide dismutase gene: pathological and immunocytochemical changes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 1996-10-01

Detailed molecular pathology studies and clinicopathological phenotyping of familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (FALS) with characterised mutations in the gene encoding Cu/Zn superoxide dismutase (SOD1) will yield important insights into the pathogenesis of motor neuron degeneration. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Different cognitive profiles for single compared with recurrent fallers without dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Neuropsychology 2009-07-01

Relationships between self-reported retrospective falls and cognitive measures (executive function, reaction time [RT], processing speed, working memory, visual attention) were examined in a population based sample of older adults (n = 658). 1 key finding →

Participants: 658 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Preinjury physical frailty and cognitive impairment among geriatric trauma patients determine postinjury functional recovery and survival

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. The journal of trauma and acute care surgery 2016-02-01

Preinjury physical frailty is the predominant predictor of postinjury functional status and mortality in geriatric trauma patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 101 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The Lille apathy rating scale (LARS), a new instrument for detecting and quantifying apathy: validation in Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2006-05-01

Standard validity indices showed that the LARS is sensitive and capable of distinguishing between apathy and depression. 2 key findings →

Participants: 159 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Rationales that Providers and Family Members Cited for the Use of Antipsychotic Medications in Nursing Home Residents with Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2015-01-30

Major categories of reasons for use of antipsychotic medications in the 204 NH residents in the study sample were behavioral (n = 171), psychiatric (n = 159), emotional states (n = 105), and cognitive diagnoses or symptoms (n = 114). 5 key findings →

Participants: 171 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