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

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 26–50 of 97 studies with an author at Radboud University Nijmegen (NL) (page 2 of 4) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 97 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

Authors

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

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,658 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.

Namaste Care Family for people with dementia and family−A randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-07-01

The intervention group showed less discomfort (-1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.88 to -0.23) and fewer sentinel events (-0.40; 95% CI = -0.64 to -0.16), specifically pneumonia (-0.08; 95% CI = -0.14, -0.02). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 116 Evidence: high

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

Revealing Individual Neuroanatomical Heterogeneity in Alzheimer Disease Using Neuroanatomical Normative Modeling

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2023-05-01

Regions with Z -scores Results Patients with AD (n = 206) had a median of 12 outlier regions (out of a possible 148), with the highest proportion of outliers (47%) in the parahippocampal gyrus. 2 key findings →

Participants: 33,072 Evidence: low

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

Blood Pressure Lowering With Nilvadipine in Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer Disease Does Not Increase the Prevalence of Orthostatic Hypotension

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Journal of the American Heart Association 2019-05-01

This study suggests that initiation of a low dose of antihypertensive treatment does not significantly increase the risk of OH in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 255 Evidence: high

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

Revised Diagnostic Criteria for Vascular Cognitive Impairment and Dementia—The VasCog-2-WSO Criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-09-16

Three survey rounds included 49 to 54 participants that agreed on VasCog-2 diagnostic criteria for preclinical, mild, and major dementia levels of vascular cognitive impairment (under the overarching term VCID). 5 key findings →

Participants: 49 Evidence: low

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

Improving comfort in people with dementia and pneumonia: a cluster randomized trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. BMC medicine 2016-08-11

When compared to usual care, the practice guideline for optimal symptom relief did not relieve discomfort and symptoms in nursing home residents with dementia and pneumonia. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high

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

C-Reactive Protein, Plasma Amyloid-β Levels, and Their Interaction With Magnetic Resonance Imaging Markers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Stroke 2018-11-01

We hypothesize that CRP (C-reactive protein) is associated with brain structural changes and may interact with amyloid to produce vascular and degenerative damage. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 736 Evidence: moderate

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

Subjective cognitive failures and hippocampal volume in elderly with white matter lesions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2008-10-01

Subjective cognitive failures (SCF) are associated with lower hippocampal volume, even in subjects without objective cognitive impairment and independent of white matter lesions. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 503 Evidence: moderate

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

Development and validation of a dementia risk score in the UK Biobank and Whitehall II cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. BMJ mental health 2023-07-01

Current dementia risk scores have had limited success in consistently identifying at-risk individuals across different ages and geographical locations. 4 key findings →

Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate

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

Proteins Involved in Endothelial Function and Inflammation Are Implicated in Cerebral Small Vessel Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Stroke 2025-01-17

). Moreover, 12 proteins related to endothelial function and inflammation were associated with neuroimaging features of SVD. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 35 Evidence: moderate

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

Imaging brain fluid dynamics and waste clearance involving perivascular spaces in cerebral small vessel disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-04-01

Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) is recognized as a major vascular contributor to cognitive decline, ultimately leading to dementia and stroke. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

The Determinants of Quality of Life of Nursing Home Residents with Young-Onset Dementia and the Differences between Dementia Subtypes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders 2017-01-01

Residents' QoL was negatively associated with advanced dementia, PDU, and NPS. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 207 Evidence: low

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

ESO Guideline on covert cerebral small vessel disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. European stroke journal 2021-05-11

'Covert' cerebral small vessel disease (ccSVD) is common on neuroimaging in persons without overt neurological manifestations, and increases the risk of future stroke, cognitive impairment, dependency, and death. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

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

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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