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

Showing 476–500 of 630 studies in Clinical safety (page 20 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.

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.

Domestic violence in Lewy body dementia: A national study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease 2025-03-14

A descriptive study using a transversal national online survey to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of behavioral and psychological symptoms (BPSD) of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and specifically, the perpetration of violent acts against primary caregivers. 196 responses, obtained in one month, were analyzed. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

For co-residing care partners, high (p = 0.001), increased (p = 0.001), and decreased (p = 0.001) fall frequency over 2 years was significantly associated with emotional difficulties. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Fifteen papers were included. Studies focused on educational and system change to improve the care of people with DSD. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

26% of the participants experienced delirium prior to diagnosis of DLB, with one participant experiencing multiple episodes in the 24 months before diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

An integrated TCD-NIRS protocol was feasible in these patient groups to measure NVC, but less-so in delirium. 3 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 32 Evidence: low

Dementia, especially Alzheimer’s disease, is increasing due to population ageing and is projected to nearly triple by 2050. 2 key findings →

Participants: 46 Evidence: low

A longstanding body of public enquiries and research identifies people living with dementia experience systemic inequalities within hospital settings, concluding a focus on improving care cultures is required. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Improving early detection, management, and treatment of comorbid conditions to dementia in residential care could slow down cognitive and functional decline, and increase residents' quality of life. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Four GPs and eleven physicians were interviewed, and four major themes emerged: (1) knowledge of best practices of BPSD management, (2) awareness of current challenges in BPSD management, (3) non-involvement, blame shifting and rationalisation: perceived reasons for the current challenges and (4) suggested solutions. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Until recently, clinicians and researchers have performed gait assessments and cognitive assessments separately when evaluating older adults, but increasing evidence from clinical practice, epidemiological studies, and clinical trials shows that gait and cognition are interrelated in older adults. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Adverse drug reactions in special populations - the elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. British journal of clinical pharmacology 2015-05-22

The International Conference on Harmonization considers older people a 'special population', as they differ from younger adults in terms of comorbidity, polypharmacy, pharmacokinetics and greater vulnerability to adverse drug reactions (ADRs). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Stress effects on morphology and function of the hippocampus

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1997-06-01

The hippocampal formation, which contains high levels of adrenal steroid receptors, is vulnerable to insults such as stroke, seizures, and head trauma, and it is also sensitive and vulnerable to the effects of stress. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The brainstem pathologies of Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) 2014-09-12

Parkinson's disease (PD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) are among the human synucleinopathies, which show alpha-synuclein immunoreactive neuronal and/or glial aggregations and progressive neuronal loss in selected brain regions (eg, substantia nigra, ventral tegmental area, pedunculopontine nucleus). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

↑ 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