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

30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–14 of 14 studies by Bouwman FH · 30,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 14 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

Other authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,054 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.

Interpreting Biomarker Results in Individual Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment in the Alzheimer's Biomarkers in Daily Practice (ABIDE) Project

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-12-01

Three- and 1-year progression risks were 86% (95% CI, 71%-95%) and 27% (95% CI, 17%-41%) when MRI results were abnormal, 82% (95% CI, 73%-89%) and 26% (95% CI, 20%-33%) when CSF test results were abnormal, and 89% (95% CI, 79%-95%) and 26% (95% CI, 18%-36%) when the results of both tests were abnormal. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 525 Evidence: moderate

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

Biomarker-based prognosis for people with mild cognitive impairment (ABIDE): a modelling study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2019-09-13

The models could aid clinicians in the interpretation of CSF biomarker and hippocampal volume results in individuals with MCI, and help research and clinical settings to prepare for a future of precision medicine in Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 883 Evidence: moderate

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

Optimizing patient care and research: the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2014-01-01

Since its opening in 2000, patient care and research go hand in hand at the Alzheimer center of the VU University Medical Center, both organized in such a way that they mutually strengthen each other. 1 key finding →

Participants: 4,000 Evidence: moderate

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

Associations between cerebral small-vessel disease and Alzheimer disease pathology as measured by cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2014-07-01

Microbleed presence was associated with lower CSF Aβ42 in AD and vascular dementia (standardized beta = -0.09, P = .003; standardized beta = -0.30, P = .01), and higher CSF tau in controls (standardized beta = 0.10, P = .03). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 914 Evidence: moderate

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

Multicenter assessment of CSF-phosphorylated tau for the prediction of conversion of MCI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 2007-12-01

An a priori defined cutoff value of p-tau(231) yields relatively stable results across centers, suggesting a good feasibility of a standard criterion of p-tau(231) for the prediction of Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 43 Evidence: low

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

Relation between subcortical grey matter atrophy and conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2015-04-22

Analysis of variances, adjusted for sex and age, showed that all structures, except the globus pallidus, were smaller in AD than in controls. 3 key findings →

Participants: 773 Evidence: low

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

New insights into atypical Alzheimer's disease in the era of biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2021-03-01

Most patients with Alzheimer's disease present with amnestic problems; however, a substantial proportion, over-represented in young-onset cases, have atypical phenotypes including predominant visual, language, executive, behavioural, or motor dysfunction. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 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    Where this research is being discussed: events