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 101–125 of 209 studies with an author at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL) (page 5 of 9) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 209 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.

Feeling lonely rather than being alone is associated with an increased risk of clinical dementia in later life and can be considered a major risk factor that, independently of vascular disease, depression and other confounding factors, deserves clinical attention. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Mind the gap: from neurons to networks to outcomes in multiple sclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2021-01-12

MRI studies have provided valuable insights into the structure and function of neural networks, particularly in health and in classical neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Memory complaints in elderly people should no longer be considered merely as an innocent age-related phenomenon or a symptom of depression. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Observational population studies indicate that prevention of dementia and cognitive decline is being accomplished, possibly as an unintended result of better vascular prevention and healthier lifestyles. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein and Neurofilament Light Reference Intervals in Healthy Individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-05-14

In 7989 cognitively unimpaired participants (median [range] age, 54 [30-90] years; 4877 [61.3%] female; mean [SD] BMI, 25.9 [4.2]; mean [SD] eGFR, 80.7 [14.7] mL/min/1.73 m2), older age, lower BMI, and reduced kidney function were associated with increased NfL and GFAP concentrations; female sex was associated with increased GFAP concentrations. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 179 Evidence: low

LIGHT will provide insight into the implementation and (cost-)effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention for indicated prevention in a memory clinic setting. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The PLI performed at least as well as the PC in detecting true changes in synchronization in model and real data but, at the same token and like-wise the IC, it was much less affected by the influence of common sources and active reference electrodes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

- Cognition was assessed with the Ruff Figural Fluency Test (RFFT), measuring non-verbal fluency and executive functioning. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 23,798 Evidence: moderate

Whole-brain atrophy rate and cognitive decline: longitudinal MR study of memory clinic patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Radiology 2008-06-23

Baseline brain volume was lowest in AD but did not differ significantly between MCI, subjective complaints, and control groups (P > .38). 3 key findings →

Participants: 65 Evidence: low

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a pathologically heterogeneous group of presenile neurodegenerative disorders, with or without the deposition of hyperphosphorylated tau protein in affected brain regions. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 18 Evidence: moderate

Reliability of six physical performance tests in older people with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Physical therapy 2012-09-13

Physical performance tests are important for assessing the effect of physical activity interventions in older people with dementia, but their psychometric properties have not been systematically established within this specific population. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 58 Evidence: low

Non-modifiable (age, apolipoprotein E (APOE) ɛ4 genotype and sex) and modifiable risk factors (co-morbidities at baseline, such as hypertension and cardiovascular disease, BMI, and sleep duration) were analyzed with mixed-effects models, adjusted for age and sex, to predict longitudinal measurements of WMH, Aβ and tau. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 494 Evidence: moderate

Plasma Alzheimer Biomarkers and Diagnostic Decision-Making in Memory Clinics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-08-03

Among 356 patients (79%) with AD as the primary suspected etiology, assessment of BBM classified 149 patients (42%) as high, 101 patients (28%) as intermediate, and 106 patients (30%) as low probability of AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 450 Evidence: moderate

Plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau)181, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light chain (NfL), and amyloid beta ratio (Aβ42/40) may have diagnostic and prognostic value in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,298 Evidence: moderate

In common with Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia, PVHs and WMHs were significantly more extensive in dementia with Lewy bodies than in controls. 5 key findings →

Participants: 27 Evidence: low

The presence of either severe WMH or MTA was associated with a modest but non-significant increase in frequency of mild cognitive deficits (severe WMH: odds ratio (OR) = 1.9 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0 to 3.7); MTA present: OR = 1.5 (95% CI, 0.8 to 2.8)). 2 key findings →

Participants: 639 Evidence: low

The detection of genetic loci associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) requires large numbers of cases and controls because variant effect sizes are mostly small. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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