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.

Home › Research › Clinical safety

Functional–behavioral patterns associated with care-related risk in hospitalized patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a real-world clustering analysis

揭 文, Yu X, Wu J, Xu Y, He C, Fan Y, Wang Y, Wu H.. Research Square, 2026-06-30

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Background Alzheimer’s disease (AD) exhibits substantial heterogeneity in functional impairment and behavioral symptoms beyond cognitive decline. However, clinically applicable multidimensional stratification approaches remain limited in real-world inpatient settings. Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study included 118 hospitalized patients with clinically diagnosed AD. Functional ability and behavioral symptoms were assessed using the Barthel Index (BI) and Nurses’ Observation Scale for Inpatient Evaluation (NOSIE). Spearman correlation and K-means clustering were performed to identify functional–behavioral subtypes and characterize care-related risk profiles. Results Functional ability showed a weak correlation with behavioral burden (Spearman ρ = −0.30), indicating functional–behavioral dissociation. Three subtypes were identified: Subtype 1 with severe functional impairment and psychomotor retardation; Subtype 2 with preserved function and mild behavioral symptoms; Subtype 3 with intermediate impairment and prominent psychotic symptoms. Significant differences were observed in feeding, toileting, walking, irritability, and behavioral burden, while demographics and comorbidities did not differ. Conclusions Functional–behavioral subtypes can be identified in hospitalized AD patients, supporting multidimensional risk stratification and individualized care planning.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 22 of the 62 points it could be judged on, which is 35 of 100. Raw total 35 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 35 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 35 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 35 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 4 / 12 A snapshot of people at one point in time
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 4 / 10 Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 118 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 22 / 62 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 35 out of 100.
Total 35 / 100 Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Yu, X., Wu, J., Xu, Y., He, C., Fan, Y., Wang, Y., et al. (2026). Functional–behavioral patterns associated with care-related risk in hospitalized patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a real-world clustering analysis. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9840761/v1

Vancouver

Yu X, Wu J, Xu Y, He C, Fan Y, Wang Y, et al. Functional–behavioral patterns associated with care-related risk in hospitalized patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a real-world clustering analysis. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9840761/v1.

BibTeX

@article{yu2026-1de9e324,
  author  = {Yu, X. and Wu, J. and Xu, Y. and He, C. and Fan, Y. and Wang, Y. and Wu, H.},
  title   = {{Functional–behavioral patterns associated with care-related risk in hospitalized patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a real-world clustering analysis}},
  journal = {Research Square},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-9840761/v1},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9840761/v1}
}

Related studies in Clinical safety

Also tagged “costs”

265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →