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

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 176–200 of 470 studies matching “delirium” (page 8 of 19) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 470 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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,658 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Additional hospitalization costs associated with delirium among older adults: evidence from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Frontiers in Public Health 2026-01-28

In a sample of 2,599 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age 78.4 years, 52.9% female, 81.8% White), we identified a total of 5,677 hospitalization claims. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,677 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The genetic architecture of postoperative delirium after major surgery and its relationship with nonpostoperative neurocognitive conditions: A genome-wide association study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. PLoS Medicine 2026-03-02

A case-control GWAS was performed in the UK Biobank to identify genetic variants associated with postoperative delirium, adjusted for age, sex, genetic chip, and the first 10 principal components. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Guanfacine for the management of the behavioral manifestations of delirium in older hospitalized adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Mental Health Clinician 2025-06-01

Upon initiation of guanfacine, patients with delirium had a reduction in daily antipsychotic exposure and a decrease in positive delirium screens. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 56 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Better Assessment of Illness Study (BASIL) II for Delirium Severity: Study Design, Variables, and Methods

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology 2025-05-16

PurposeDelirium is a common yet preventable complication of hospitalization, surgery and illness that is associated with poor outcomes. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Overactive bladder medications and risk of emergency hospital admissions with delirium in adults without dementia: self-controlled case series

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2025-08-29

The risk of delirium admissions was elevated for the first 1-30 days of prescriptions [IRR 1.54 (95% CI 1.30-1.82) for men, 1.44 (1.22-1.70) for women] and whilst reducing over time for women [1.10 (0.94-1.29) for 91-365 days of prescriptions], it remained elevated for men [1.38 (1.17-1.64)]. 5 key findings →

Participants: 293 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Prevalence of cognitive morbidity including delirium in 51,202 emergency hospital admissions across 29 medical and surgical specialties in ORCHARD-EPR: a cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. EClinicalMedicine 2025-11-24

Among 51,202 admissions (mean/SD age = 82/7 years), any cognitive morbidity was present in 18,225 (35.6%, 95% CI 35.2-36.0%): delirium occurred in 24.0% (n = 12,289, of which 14.3% (n = 7332) had delirium only and 9.7% (n = 4957) had delirium + dementia) dementia only in 8.7%, (n = 4450), AMTS <8 in 2.9% (n = 1486). 5 key findings →

Participants: 12,289 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

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

Social Disparities, Delirium Occurrence, and Related Outcomes Among Hospitalized Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2025-09-30

A total of 260,200 older adults were screened for delirium (median [IQR] age in years: 78.0 [74.0-84.0]; female: 143,402 [55.1%]; non-Hispanic Black: 40,737 [15.8%]; Hispanic: 30,760 [11.9%]; median [IQR] Area Deprivation Index: 4.0 [2.0-6.0]; median [IQR] Charlson Comorbidity Index: 10.0 [8.0-13.0]). 5 key findings →

Participants: 260,200 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Systemic inflammation, delirium and clinical progression in mild-moderate Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. EBioMedicine 2026-02-17

Systemic inflammatory biomarkers were primarily associated with age/socio-demographic characteristics, remained strikingly stable over time, and were not associated with AD progression. 5 key findings →

Participants: 333 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Artificial intelligence in drug development for delirium and Alzheimer’s disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B 2025-04-28

Delirium is a common cause and complication of hospitalization in the elderly and is associated with higher risk of future dementia and progression of existing dementia, of which 70% is Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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