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

31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–21 of 21 studies by Hofman A with an author at Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 21 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.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,851 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.

The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Journal of hypertension 2003-05-01

In elderly hypertensive patients, a slightly more effective blood pressure reduction during candesartan-based therapy, compared with control therapy, was associated with a modest, statistically non-significant, reduction in major cardiovascular events and with a marked reduction in non-fatal stroke. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 4,964 Evidence: high

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

Smoking and risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease in a population-based cohort study: the Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 1998-06-01

During mean follow-up of 2.1 (range 1.5-3.4) years, 146 incident cases of dementia were detected, of which 105 were Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 6,870 Evidence: moderate

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

Incidence and risk of dementia. The Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. American journal of epidemiology 1998-03-01

To assess age-, sex-, and subtype-specific incidence rates of dementia and to calculate the risk of dementia, the authors performed a large, community-based, prospective cohort study on dementia as part of the Rotterdam Study. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 7,046 Evidence: moderate

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

Effect of baseline cognitive function and antihypertensive treatment on cognitive and cardiovascular outcomes: Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. American journal of hypertension 2005-08-01

We examined whether cognitive function at baseline affected cognitive and cardiovascular outcomes in the Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE), a blood pressure (BP)-lowering intervention trial. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 2,070 Evidence: low

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

Atherosclerosis, apolipoprotein E, and prevalence of dementia and Alzheimer's disease in the Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 1997-01-01

All indicators of atherosclerosis were associated with dementia (odds ratios ranging from 1.3 to 1.9) and its major subtypes Alzheimer's disease (odds ratios 1.3-1.8) and vascular dementia (odds ratios 1.9-3.2). 4 key findings →

Participants: 284 Evidence: low

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

Prestroke Vascular Pathology and the Risk of Recurrent Stroke and Poststroke Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Stroke 2016-07-14

Improved short-term survival after stroke has necessitated quantifying risk and risk factors of long-term sequelae after stroke (ie, recurrent stroke and dementia). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,237 Evidence: low

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

Cognitive correlates of ventricular enlargement and cerebral white matter lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. The Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Stroke 1994-06-01

Ventricular enlargement and white matter lesions are frequent findings on cerebral magnetic resonance imaging scans of elderly subjects. 4 key findings →

Participants: 90 Evidence: moderate

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

Determinants, MRI correlates, and prognosis of mild cognitive impairment: the Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2014-01-01

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) marks a transitional stage between healthy aging and dementia, but the understanding of MCI in the general population remains limited. 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,198 Evidence: low

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

↑ 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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