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 76–100 of 201 studies with an author at Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL) (page 4 of 9) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 201 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.

Can Use of Digital Technologies by People with Dementia Improve Self-Management and Social Participation? A Systematic Review of Effect Studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Journal of clinical medicine 2021-02-05

There is increasing interest in the use of technology to support social health in dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

A nonsynonymous mutation in PLCG2 reduces the risk of Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies and frontotemporal dementia, and increases the likelihood of longevity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2019-05-27

The genetic variant rs72824905-G (minor allele) in the PLCG2 gene was previously associated with a reduced Alzheimer's disease risk (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 53,627 Evidence: low

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

Biomarker-based prognosis for people with mild cognitive impairment (ABIDE): a modelling study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2019-09-13

The models could aid clinicians in the interpretation of CSF biomarker and hippocampal volume results in individuals with MCI, and help research and clinical settings to prepare for a future of precision medicine in Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 883 Evidence: moderate

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

Association of amyloid-β CSF/PET discordance and tau load 5 years later

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2020-09-10

We included 730 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) participants without dementia (282 cognitively normal, 448 mild cognitive impairment) with baseline [ 18 F]florbetapir PET and CSF Aβ 42 available. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 318 Evidence: moderate

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

The Alzheimer's Association appropriate use recommendations for blood biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2022-07-31

Blood-based markers (BBMs) have recently shown promise to revolutionize the diagnostic and prognostic work-up of Alzheimer's disease (AD), as well as to improve the design of interventional trials.

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

Tau PET correlates with different Alzheimer's disease-related features compared to CSF and plasma p-tau biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. EMBO molecular medicine 2021-07-13

PET, CSF and plasma biomarkers of tau pathology may be differentially associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related demographic, cognitive, genetic and neuroimaging markers. 3 key findings →

Participants: 400 Evidence: low

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

Machine learning-based prediction of short- and long-term mortality for shared decision-making in older hip fracture patients: the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit algorithms in 74,396 cases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Acta Orthopaedica 2025-07-07

74,396 patients (median age 84, IQR 78-89; 68% female) were analyzed. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 74,396 Evidence: moderate

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

A Pragmatic, Data-Driven Method to Determine Cutoffs for CSF Biomarkers of Alzheimer Disease Based on Validation Against PET Imaging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2022-05-26

The proposed novel, pragmatic method to determine CSF biomarker cutoffs for AD does not require assessment of other biomarkers or assumptions concerning the clinical diagnosis of patients. 1 key finding →

Participants: 497 Evidence: low

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

The probabilistic model of Alzheimer disease: the amyloid hypothesis revised

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neuroscience 2021-11-23

The current conceptualization of Alzheimer disease (AD) is driven by the amyloid hypothesis, in which a deterministic chain of events leads from amyloid deposition and then tau deposition to neurodegeneration and progressive cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Sex differences in CSF biomarkers vary by Alzheimer disease stage and APOE ε4 genotype

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2020-08-11

Within APOE ε4 carriers, sex differences in CSF p-Tau are more evident in early disease stages, whereas for APOE ε4 noncarriers, sex differences are more evident in advanced disease stages. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,801 Evidence: low

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

A metabolite-based machine learning approach to diagnose Alzheimer-type dementia in blood: Results from the European Medical Information Framework for Alzheimer disease biomarker discovery cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2019-12-18

This study showed that plasma metabolites have the potential to match the AUC of well-established AD CSF biomarkers in a relatively small cohort. 4 key findings →

Participants: 883 Evidence: moderate

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

Differential associations of APOE-ε2 and APOE-ε4 alleles with PET-measured amyloid-β and tau deposition in older individuals without dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 2021-02-01

We analyzed data from 462 ADNI participants without dementia who underwent Aβ ([ 18 F]florbetapir or [ 18 F]florbetaben) and tau ([ 18 F]flortaucipir) PET, structural MRI, and cognitive testing. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 156 Evidence: moderate

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

Neurofilaments as biomarkers in neurological disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Nature Reviews Neurology 2018-08-31

This study reviewed the structure, function, analytical aspects, and age-dependent normal ranges of neurofilaments, providing a comprehensive overview of neurofilament light chain as a marker of axonal injury across various neurological disorders. 2 key findings →

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

Associations Between Cardiovascular Risk, Structural Brain Changes, and Cognitive Decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2020-05-01

Higher cardiovascular risk burden may predict decline in episodic memory, working memory, and perceptual speed and is associated with neurodegeneration and vascular lesions in the brain. 4 key findings →

Participants: 378 Evidence: low

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

The Integration of Lifestyle Modification Advice and Diet and Physical Exercise Interventions: Cornerstones in the Management of Obesity with Incretin Mimetics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Obesity Facts 2025-11-18

The introduction of incretin mimetics (IMs), including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) such as liraglutide and semaglutide, as well as dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor co-agonists (GLP-1/GIP RAs) like tirzepatide, has revolutionized obesity treatment. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis 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