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 51–71 of 71 studies by Scheltens P with an author at Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL) (page 3 of 3) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 71 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.

Activity dependent degeneration explains hub vulnerability in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. PLoS computational biology 2012-08-16

Brain connectivity studies have revealed that highly connected 'hub' regions are particularly vulnerable to Alzheimer pathology: they show marked amyloid-β deposition at an early stage. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

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

Disturbed fluctuations of resting state EEG synchronization in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology 2004-10-28

Alzheimer's disease is characterized both by a lower mean level of functional connectivity as well as by diminished fluctuations in the level of synchronization. 2 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: low

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

Differential regional atrophy of the cingulate gyrus in Alzheimer disease: a volumetric MRI study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) 2006-01-04

Magnetic resonance imaging-based volumetric measurements provide a useful technique for quantifying in vivo regional cerebral atrophy in Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Cholinergic challenge in Alzheimer patients and mild cognitive impairment differentially affects hippocampal activation--a pharmacological fMRI study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2005-10-26

The differential response to cholinergic challenge in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer patients may reflect a difference in the functional status of the cholinergic system between both groups, which is in line with recent results showing a differential clinical response to cholinergic treatment. 1 key finding →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

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

Relationship of cerebrospinal fluid markers to 11C-PiB and 18F-FDDNP binding

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine 2009-08-18

The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential relationships between cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) measurements of beta-amyloid-1-42 (Abeta(1-42)) and total tau to (11)C-Pittsburgh compound B ((11)C-PiB) and 2-(1-{6-[(2-(18)F-fluoroethyl)(methyl)amino]-2-naphthyl}ethylidene) malononitrile ((18)F-FDDNP) binding as measured using PET. 4 key findings →

Participants: 37 Evidence: low

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

Disrupted modular brain dynamics reflect cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. NeuroImage 2011-11-30

The relation between pathology and cognitive dysfunction in dementia is still poorly understood, although disturbed communication between different brain regions is almost certainly involved. 3 key findings →

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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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