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 501–525 of 630 studies in Clinical safety (page 21 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.

Delirium is a mental disorder characterized by disturbances in consciousness, orientation, memory, thought, perception, and behavior, of acute onset and fluctuating course. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Dopamine loss in the substantia nigra causes several of the motor signs seen in Parkinson's disease, but there is now increasing evidence highlighting the importance of cholinergic loss in the pathophysiology of nonmotor symptoms. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recommendations on the diagnosis and management of Niemann-Pick disease type C

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Molecular genetics and metabolism 2009-06-14

Niemann-Pick disease type C (NP-C) is a lysosomal storage disease in which impaired intracellular lipid trafficking leads to excess storage of cholesterol and glycosphingolipids in the brain and other tissues. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Navigate PD was an educational program established to supplement existing guidelines and provide recommendations on the management of Parkinson's disease (PD) refractory to oral/transdermal therapies. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

There has been an awakening: Emerging mechanisms of C9orf72 mutations in FTD/ALS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Brain research 2016-04-06

The discovery of C9orf72 mutations as the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) has awakened a surge of interest in deciphering how mutations in this mysterious gene cause disease and what can be done to stop it. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Medically ill patients diagnosed at index admission as delirious, i.e., suffering cognitive decline and an altered state of consciousness, had higher fatality rates than demented, cognitively intact or depressed patients. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The risk of comorbid conditions increases with age and may result in underdiagnosis: in older patients, new symptoms may not be clearly recognized by the patient and may be dismissed by practitioners as manifestations of preexisting conditions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Delirium and dementia share similarities in clinical and pathogenic features, leading to the speculation that instead of being distinct clinical entities, the two age-related conditions may be linked by a common pathogenic mechanism. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Delirium is a profound, acute confusional state that leads to long-term cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neuroinflammation in delirium: a postmortem case-control study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Rejuvenation research 2011-10-06

These preliminary study results show an association between human brain activity of microglia, astrocytes, and IL-6 and delirium in elderly patients and add to the accumulating evidence that inflammatory mechanisms are involved in delirium. 5 key findings →

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