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

27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 76–100 of 318 studies with an author at Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL) (page 4 of 13) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 318 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; 13,259 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.

Effect of obicetrapib, a potent cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor, on p-tau217 levels in patients with cardiovascular disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2025-10-17

Obicetrapib significantly slowed AD biomarker progression over 12 months in participants with ASCVD, with the greatest effects in ApoE4 carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

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

Relationship of regional brain β-amyloid to gait speed

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2015-12-07

More research is needed to elucidate the neural mechanisms underlying these regional associations, which may involve motor and sensorimotor circuits hitherto largely neglected in the pathophysiology of AD. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Efficacy, safety and tolerability of rivastigmine capsules in patients with probable vascular dementia: the VantagE study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Current medical research and opinion 2008-07-31

Consistent with trials evaluating other cholinesterase inhibitors, rivastigmine did not provide consistent efficacy in probable VaD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 710 Evidence: high

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

Vascular care in patients with Alzheimer disease with cerebrovascular lesions slows progression of white matter lesions on MRI: the evaluation of vascular care in Alzheimer's disease (EVA) study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Stroke 2010-01-07

Vascular care in patients with Alzheimer disease with cerebrovascular lesions slows progression of WMLs. 2 key findings →

Participants: 123 Evidence: high

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

Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2007-08-01

The NINCDS-ADRDA and the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are the prevailing diagnostic standards in research; however, they have now fallen behind the unprecedented growth of scientific knowledge. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

White matter hyperintensities, cognitive impairment and dementia: an update

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2015-02-17

White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) in the brain are the consequence of cerebral small vessel disease, and can easily be detected on MRI. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Interpreting Biomarker Results in Individual Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment in the Alzheimer's Biomarkers in Daily Practice (ABIDE) Project

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-12-01

Three- and 1-year progression risks were 86% (95% CI, 71%-95%) and 27% (95% CI, 17%-41%) when MRI results were abnormal, 82% (95% CI, 73%-89%) and 26% (95% CI, 20%-33%) when CSF test results were abnormal, and 89% (95% CI, 79%-95%) and 26% (95% CI, 18%-36%) when the results of both tests were abnormal. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 525 Evidence: moderate

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

A hexanucleotide repeat expansion in C9ORF72 is the cause of chromosome 9p21-linked ALS-FTD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neuron 2011-09-21

The chromosome 9p21 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-frontotemporal dementia (ALS-FTD) locus contains one of the last major unidentified autosomal-dominant genes underlying these common neurodegenerative diseases. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Biomarkers as predictors for conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer-type dementia: implications for trial design

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2010-01-01

Disease modifying drugs for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are likely to be most effective when given in non-demented subjects. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

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

Shared and disease-specific pathways in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Nature Medicine 2025-07-15

Neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), exhibit distinct yet overlapping pathological mechanisms. 2 key findings →

Participants: 10,527 Evidence: low

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

Increased plasma DOPA decarboxylase levels in Lewy body disorders are driven by dopaminergic treatment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Nature Communications 2025-01-29

DOPA Decarboxylase (DDC) has been proposed as a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker with increased concentrations in Lewy body disorders (LBDs) and highest levels in patients receiving dopaminergic treatment. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 71 Evidence: moderate

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

Repeated plasma p‐tau217 measurements to monitor clinical progression heterogeneity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-05-01

Three progression clusters emerged in both cohorts: stable cognition, slow decline, and rapid decline-each including cases initially classified as CN or MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 186 Evidence: moderate

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

Cost-effectiveness of the Namaste care family program for nursing home residents with advanced dementia in comparison with usual care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. BMC health services research 2020-09-04

The Namaste Care Family program is dominant over usual care and, thus, cost-effective, although statistical uncertainty was considerable. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

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

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

↑ 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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