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 576–600 of 630 studies in Clinical safety (page 24 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.

Experimental constraints on quaternary structure in Alzheimer's beta-amyloid fibrils

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Biochemistry 2006-01-01

We describe solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements on fibrils formed by the 40-residue beta-amyloid peptide associated with Alzheimer's disease (Abeta(1-40)) that place constraints on the identity and symmetry of contacts between in-register, parallel beta-sheets in the fibrils. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Postoperative cognitive dysfunction, confusion, and delirium are common after general anesthesia in the elderly, with symptoms persisting for months or years in some patients. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Environmental Correlates to Behavioral Health Outcomes in Alzheimer's Special Care Units

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2003-10-01

We found associations between each behavioral health measure and particular environmental design features, as well as between behavioral health measures and both resident and nonenvironmental facility variables. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Patients treated with citalopram or perphenazine showed statistically significant improvement on several Neurobehavioral Rating Scale factor scores. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Food and Drug Administration–approved information and public advertisements belie neurodegenerative risks for second-generation antipsychotics in affective illness. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Nature and Management of Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Psychiatric Annals 2025-09-01

Delirium is the most common neuropsychiatric syndrome encountered by clinicians caring for critically ill patients and is best characterized by five core domains: cognitive deficits, attentional deficits, circadian rhythm dysregulation, emotional dysregulation, and alteration in psychomotor functioning. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The Impact of Dementia Caregiving on the Health of the Spousal Caregiver

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Medicina 2026-04-21

Evidence suggests that chronic caregiving stress contributes to biological changes such as immune dysregulation, inflammation, acceleration, aging, and potential cognitive decline in caregivers themselves. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

This study examined how nursing home staff adapt to challenging mealtime behaviors in residents with dementia, such as turning away or refusing food. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Navigating Dementia and Delirium: Balancing Identity and Interests in Advance Directives

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. Nursing Philosophy 2025-01-01

The moral authority of advance directives (ADs) in the context of persons living with dementia (PLWD) has sparked a multifaceted debate, encompassing concerns such as authenticity and the appropriate involvement of caregivers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Delirium as a Precursor to Dementia in Elderly Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2025-05-16

This study aimed to investigate the association between delirium and incident dementia in elderly (≥65 years) type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients, addressing the heightened dementia risk in this population. newly diagnosed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2007. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The historical and projected prevalence of dysphagia in Aotearoa New Zealand

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. New Zealand Medical Journal 2025-02-27

The prevalence of dysphagia in Aotearoa New Zealand is estimated to have been approximately 1.78% in 2020, with the biggest aetiological contributors being stroke, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Between April 2020 and March 2021, the number of fall-related emergency admissions in England for adults over 65 years was 1933 per 100 000 people. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Importantly, delirium is not merely a transient cognitive fluctuation; it is independently associated with increased short- and long-term mortality, longer hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and persistent cognitive impairment comparable to mild dementia[4,5]. 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