79/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2022-06-01
The findings suggest that risk factors associated with ADRDs have changed over the past decade and differ based on sex and race and ethnicity. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 378
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Despite older racial and ethnic minorities (REMs) being more likely to develop dementia they are underrepresented in clinical trials focused on neurological disorders. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 100,748
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Identifying ancestry-specific molecular profiles of late-onset Alzheimer's Disease (LOAD) in brain tissue is crucial to understand novel mechanisms and develop effective interventions in non-European, high-risk populations. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 731
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
79/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2024-01-17
Among 91,881 participants (mean age 59.3 at baseline, 55.0% female participants), 16,507 incident ADRD cases were identified from Medicare claims (1999-2016, mean follow-up 9.3 years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 91,881
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
78/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2013-04-01
Genome-wide significance in fully adjusted models (sex, age, APOE genotype, population stratification) was observed for a SNP in ABCA7 (rs115550680, allele = G; frequency, 0.09 cases and 0.06 controls; odds ratio [OR], 1.79 [95% CI, 1.47-2.12]; P = 2.2 × 10(-9)), which is in linkage disequilibrium with SNPs previously associated with Alzheimer disease in Europeans (0.8 Conclusions and relevance In this meta-analysis of data from African American participants, Alzheimer disease was significantly associated with variants in ABCA7 and with other genes that have been associated with Alzheimer disease in individuals of European ancestry. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 5,896
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
78/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2021-01-01
In addition, several loci associated with rare variants, including a genome-wide significant intergenic locus near IGF1R at 15q26 (P = 1.7 × 10-9) and 6 additional loci with suggestive significance (P ≤ 5 × 10-7) such as API5 at 11p12 (P = 8.8 × 10-8) and RBFOX1 at 16p13 (P = 5.4 × 10-7) were identified. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 2,784
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
78/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2024-09-18
Greater MIND diet adherence was associated with decreased risk of cognitive impairment in female participants but not male participants, with no difference between Black participants and White participants. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 14,145
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2022-07-01
A large fraction of dementia cases in the US were associated with potentially modifiable risk factors, especially for Black and Hispanic individuals. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2022-07-01
A total of 6321 participants (mean [SE] age, 56.1 [0.18] years at visit 1; n = 4077 women [57.8%]) were included. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 4,077
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
The overall weighted PAF for potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia was 39·5% (95% CI 37·5-41·6) in China (n=2162 participants), 41·2% (39·1-43·4) in India (n=2004), and 55·8% (54·9-56·7) in our Latin American sample (n=12 865). 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 2,162
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Dementia prevalence rates reported for age 65+ years from a low of 6.3% in Japanese Americans, 12.9% in Caribbean Hispanic Americans, 12.2% in Guamanian Chamorro and ranged widely in African Americans from 7.2% to 20.9%. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 1,215
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
1,901 participants completed the MoCA and 547 the HCAP. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,901
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
receipt of (1) any mental health treatment (medication or psychotherapy); (2) any psychotherapy in a calendar quarter. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,913,945
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Among these, 85.5% were non-Hispanic (NH) white, 8% NH black, 4.34% Hispanic or Latino, 1.6% NH Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.3% NH American Indian or Alaska Native adults. 5 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort
Participants: 10,000
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
74/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2022-10-03
Data from 17 107 individuals (321 Asian, 635 Black, 829 Hispanic, and 15 322 White) with MCI or dementia and amyloid PET were analyzed between April 2020 and January 2022. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 3,154
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
74/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2022-04-01
Dementia is a significant public health challenge and may have greater incidence among older adults from underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 90
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
74/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2017-05-01
In both phases, men were encouraged to visit their physician if the screen results indicated possible cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 7,540
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
74/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.
·
BMJ global health
·
2022-04-01
The estimated costs of dementia in LMICs are lower than in high-income countries. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
During 1 110 831 person-years at risk, we recorded 245 573 hospitalisations in the Finnish cohorts; the corresponding numbers in the UK study were 60 946 hospitalisations in 186 572 person-years. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 9,838
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Low SES substantially increased the risk of dementia and cognitive dysfunction, suggesting that public health strategies could reduce the dementia burden by reducing social inequalities. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 1,485,702
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The sample included 673,102 PWD (mean age 86, 66% female, 85% White, 7.3% Black, 6.3% Hispanic, 1.6% AAPI) enrolled in 4371 hospices nationwide. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 673,102
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
12,887 participants were interviewed at baseline. 11,718 were free of dementia, of whom 8137 (69%) were reinterviewed, contributing 34,718 person-years of follow-up. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 12,887
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
72/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.
·
JAMA psychiatry
·
2019-01-01
The study enrolled 181 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.6 [7.2] years; 114 [63.0%] female): 91 to the intervention arm (depression in later life [DIL] intervention) and 90 to care as usual (CAU). 1 key finding →
Participants: 181
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Stigma negatively affects individuals with cognitive impairment and dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 51
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
This landmark NIH-funded trial (REACH II) tested a structured, multi-part support program for 642 Hispanic, White, and Black family caregivers of people with Alzheimer's or related dementias across 5 U.S. cities. 4 key findings →
Design: RCT
Participants: 642
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
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 27,380 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.