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 1–25 of 32 studies in Clinical safety published 2016 (page 1 of 2) · 30,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 32 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

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.

At week 32, compared with patients assigned to placebo (59 assessed), those assigned to rivastigmine (55 assessed) had improved step time variability for normal walking (ratio of geometric means 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.88; p=0.002) and the simple dual task (0.79; 0.62-0.99; p=0.045). 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 130 Evidence: high

Among patients with agitated delirium receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, the addition of dexmedetomidine to standard care compared with standard care alone (placebo) resulted in more ventilator-free hours at 7 days. 5 key findings →

Participants: 39 Evidence: high

The present systematic review critically examines the available scientific literature on risk factors for malnutrition in the older population (aged ≥65 y). 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Association of Antipsychotic Use With Mortality Risk in Patients With Parkinson Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2016-05-01

The use of APs by patients with dementia in the general population is associated with increased mortality, but whether this risk extends to patients with PD remains unknown. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 7,877 Evidence: moderate

We found no definitive evidence on effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of specific interventions but studies were small and short term. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Men are at higher risk of postoperative delirium after hip fracture repair than women and have more postoperative surgical complications. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 431 Evidence: moderate

Elevated preoperative and postoperative plasma levels of C-reactive protein were associated with delirium, suggesting that a preinflammatory state and heightened inflammatory response to surgery are potential pathophysiologic mechanisms of delirium. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 566 Evidence: moderate

An update on semantic dementia: genetics, imaging, and pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2016-12-05

Progressive and relatively circumscribed loss of semantic knowledge, referred to as semantic dementia (SD) which falls under the broader umbrella of frontotemporal dementia, was officially identified as a clinical syndrome less than 50 years ago. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Data synthesis Eszopiclone, zolpidem, and suvorexant improved short-term global and sleep outcomes compared with placebo, although absolute effect sizes were small (low- to moderate-strength evidence). 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

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

Participants: 101 Evidence: low

Although the cause and the cure for dementia remain unknown, it is clear that environmental factors can offer relief of cognitive impairment and encourage emotional stability. 1 key finding →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

The present results support that progression to AD dementia is driven by the synergistic rather than a mere additive effect between Aβ and p-tau proteins. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

In view of its ability to explain the most frequent motor symptoms of Parkinson's Disease (PD), degeneration of dopaminergic neurons has been considered one of the disease's main pathophysiological features. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Author(s): Reus, Victor I; Fochtmann, Laura J; Eyler, A Evan; Hilty, Donald M; Horvitz-Lennon, Marcela; Jibson, Michael D; Lopez, Oscar L; Mahoney, Jane; Pasic, Jagoda; Tan, Zaldy S; Wills, Cheryl D; Rhoads, Richard; Yager, Joel 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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