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

27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 26–50 of 60 studies by Koudstaal PJ (page 2 of 3) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 60 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; 13,259 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.

Retinopathy and risk of dementia: the Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2012-07-11

We investigated the associations between retinopathy and dementia and its subtypes Alzheimer disease (AD) and vascular dementia both cross-sectionally and prospectively in the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based cohort study. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 195 Evidence: moderate

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

Cerebral Vasoreactivity, Apolipoprotein E, and the Risk of Dementia: A Population-Based Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology 2015-11-19

Cerebral vasoreactivity (CVR) is a key factor in maintenance of continuous cerebral perfusion and a marker of (micro)vascular damage. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,629 Evidence: moderate

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

Unrecognized myocardial infarction in relation to risk of dementia and cerebral small vessel disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Stroke 2008-03-06

Men, but not women, with unrecognized myocardial infarction (MI) have an increased risk of cardiac events and stroke compared with those without MI or with recognized MI. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 613 Evidence: moderate

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

Use of hippocampal and amygdalar volumes on magnetic resonance imaging to predict dementia in cognitively intact elderly people

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Archives of general psychiatry 2006-01-01

Atrophy of the hippocampus and amygdala on MRI in cognitively intact elderly people predicts dementia during a 6-year follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

10-year trajectories of depressive symptoms and risk of dementia: a population-based study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. The lancet. Psychiatry 2016-04-29

Late-life depressive symptoms have been extensively studied for their relationship with incident dementia, but have been typically assessed at a single timepoint. 4 key findings →

Participants: 3,325 Evidence: moderate

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

Subjective complaints precede Parkinson disease: the rotterdam study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2006-01-09

Neuronal degeneration and dopamine loss in the preclinical phase of Parkinson disease may produce subtle complaints before clinically recognizable symptoms emerge. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,038 Evidence: moderate

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

Association between blood pressure, white matter lesions, and atrophy of the medial temporal lobe

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2005-01-01

Blood pressure and indicators of small-vessel disease in the brain may be associated with atrophy of structures affected by Alzheimer pathology. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Trends in the Incidence of Parkinson Disease in the General Population: The Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. American journal of epidemiology 2016-04-29

We investigated trends in the incidence of parkinsonism and Parkinson disease (PD) by comparing data from the first 2 subcohorts of the Rotterdam Study, a prospective, population-based cohort study (first subcohort: baseline 1990 with 10 years of follow-up; second subcohort, baseline 2000 with 10 years of follow-up). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

A 10-year follow-up of hippocampal volume on magnetic resonance imaging in early dementia and cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2010-04-01

With the increased interest in the use of sequential magnetic resonance images as potential surrogate biomarkers of the disease process, it has also been shown that the rate of hippocampal atrophy is higher in persons with Alzheimer's disease compared to those with mild cognitive impairment and the healthy elderly. 5 key findings →

Participants: 244 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Homocysteine and brain atrophy on MRI of non-demented elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2003-01-01

Patients with Alzheimer's disease have higher plasma homocysteine levels than controls, but it is uncertain whether higher plasma homocysteine levels are involved in the early pathogenesis of the disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 511 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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