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.

Find studies

Showing 51–75 of 97 studies with an author at Radboud University Nijmegen (NL) (page 3 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.

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.

Identifying pathways to the prevention of dementia: the Netherlands consortium of dementia cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. BMC Neurology 2025-02-12

We increased the findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability (FAIR) status of the cohorts through harmonization of data across cohorts, implementation of medical imaging repositories for scan management, implementation of the Personal Health Train infrastructure and provision of meta-data in existing cohort catalogues. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

We included 17098 records, 4139 from deceased individuals (mean age 81) and 12959 from living individuals (mean age 79). 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 17,098 Evidence: moderate

Cohort 1 included 446 individuals (mean age (SD) 65.2 years (8.9); 203 women), Cohort 2 included 164 individuals (mean age (SD) 49.9 years (12.6); 88 women). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 446 Evidence: moderate

The results of this proof-of-principle study will be used to assess the potential of target engagement of minocycline for CAA. 1 key finding →

Participants: 60 Evidence: high

• Longitudinal imaging-genetics study of hippocampal atrophy trajectories over 5 years in ADNI. • APOE -ε4 carriership and ApoE CSF proteomic quantitative trait loci are key genetic drivers of accelerated hippocampal atrophy in amyloid-positive MCI. • Genetic effects are stage-specific, with strongest associations during the prodromal phase of AD. • Sex differences in atrophy rates are observed, but do not significantly alter genetic influences. • Findings support the utility of APOE and functional genetic markers as stratification tools for early neurodegeneration in AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,051 Evidence: moderate

Heterogeneous histopathology of cortical microbleeds in cerebral amyloid angiopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2016-02-03

This study provides evidence for heterogeneous pathologic substrates and possibly different pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying MRI-observed cortical microbleeds in the context of advanced CAA and Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

In adjusted analyses, the rate of first ACP conversation for persons with organ failure was the lowest (IRR 0.70 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.73)). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Cerebrovascular disease (CVD) and amyloid-β (Aβ) often coexist, but their influence on neurodegeneration and cognition in predementia stages remains unclear. 4 key findings →

Participants: 99 Evidence: moderate

This manuscript is the second part of a two-part description of the current status of understanding of the network function of the brain in health and disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This work was supported by a Crossover grant (Maintaining Optimal Cognitive Functioning In Aging [MOCIA] 17611) of the Dutch Research Council (NWO), granted in December 2019. 5 key findings →

Participants: 102 Evidence: high

The observed misalignment of opinion between end users and developers on desirable design features of companion robots demonstrates the need for user-centred design during development. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

These data suggest that current treatment of late stage parkinsonism in the community remains insufficiently effective to alleviate disabling symptoms in many patients. 3 key findings →

Participants: 692 Evidence: low

They are often found in middle-aged individuals and are associated with a greater risk of stroke and vascular dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,072 Evidence: low

Four hundred eighty-six participants developed dementia during 37,782 person-years of follow-up. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,205 Evidence: low

Of the association between apathy and dementia (HR 1.49 [95% CI 0.99-2.41]), 27% was mediated by physical inactivity, BMI and diabetes combined. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,303 Evidence: low

↑ 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