Included in the analysis were 48,330 participants across 46 ADRCs (mean [SD] age, 71.3 [10.5] years; 20,767 female [57%]; 4,138 Hispanic [8.6%]; 1,392 non-Hispanic Asian [2.9%]; 6,766 non-Hispanic Black [14%] individuals; and 676 individuals [1.4%] of other races. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 48,330
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Social determinants of health, including neighborhood factors, play a key role in the health of diverse older adults. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 452
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
66/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2023-11-01
The final sample comprised 2478 individuals, of which 59 (2.4%) were Asian, 63 (2.5%) were Black, and 2356 (95.1%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 2,478
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
66/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2024-08-01
Among the cohort of 7180 older adults (median age, 74 years [range, 65-102 years]; 4729 women [65.9%]), 1036 were African American or Black (14.4%), 21 were American Indian or Alaska Native (0.3%), 143 were Asian (2.0%), 332 were Hispanic (4.6%), and 5648 were non-Hispanic White (78.7%); the median educational level was 16.0 years (range, 1.0-29.0 years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
ϵ4 prevalence in Black (46%) and White participants (46%) was almost double that of Latino participants (24%). ϵ4 was associated with poorer baseline episodic memory only in White participants (p = .001), but had a moderately strong association with episodic memory change across all racial/ethnic groups (Blacks= -.061 SD/year, Latinos = -.055,Whites= -.055). ϵ4 association with semantic memory change was strongest in White participants (-.071), intermediate in Latino participants (-.041), and weakest in Black participants (-.022). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 297
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2025-06-25
Greater neighborhood disadvantage was associated with elevated inflammatory and AD CSF biomarkers cross-sectionally and longitudinal increases in a nonspecific inflammatory blood biomarker. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 334
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2023-01-01
Offspring participants (497 [33.9%]) had a mean (SD) age of 55 (10.7) years, had a mean (SD) of 13 (3.5) years of education, and included 117 Black individuals (23.5%), 348 Latinx individuals (70%), 32 White individuals (6.4%), and 324 women (65.2%). 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,467
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
A structured, multicomponent skills training intervention that targeted CG self-care behaviors as one of five target areas, improved self-reported health status, and decreased burden and bother in racially and ethnically diverse CGs of people with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Psychotic symptoms are common and persistent in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 9,749
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
Professional caregivers may initiate ACP early if strategies carefully consider timing and family and patient receptiveness or reluctance, and are family and patient-centered. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 33
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Rural subjects with higher health literacy were more likely to want comfort care compared to those with lower levels of health literacy. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 43
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2023-06-01
Among hospitalized older adults with serious illness, a pragmatic clinician-facing communication-priming intervention significantly improved documentation of goals-of-care discussions in the electronic health record, with a greater effect size in racially or ethnically minoritized patients. 3 key findings →
Participants: 3,918
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2020-08-01
In this cohort study, exposure to residential segregation throughout young adulthood was associated with worse processing speed among black participants as early as in midlife. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 5,115
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The higher risk of AD among blacks may stem from lower level of cognitive test performance persisting throughout the observation period rather than faster rate of late-life cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Participants: 7,735
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
After adjusting for various risk factors, participants with low socioeconomic status (vs high) had increased risk for early-onset dementia (3·38, 2·61-4·37), and overall lifestyle mediated 3·2% (1·8-5·7) of the association. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 345
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2021-10-01
In 303 participants (mean [SD] age, 73.16 [5.19] years, 181 [60%] women, 96 [32%] non-Hispanic White, 113 [37%] Non-Hispanic Black, 94 [31%] Hispanic), baseline WMH volumes were associated with cortical thinning in medial temporal and frontal/parietal regions. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 303
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2021-06-01
These findings highlight substantial disparities in the timeliness and comprehensiveness of dementia diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 993
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2008-11-01
Factors influencing survival in Alzheimer disease include race/ethnicity and comorbid diabetes and hypertension. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 323
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
BMC geriatrics
·
2010-08-06
The demographic and health transitions will lead to large and rapid increases in the numbers of dependent older people particularly in middle income countries (MIC). 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The mean age was 70.9 years (standard deviation, 5.9), 57.2% were women, 40.6% were illiterate, and 88.3% were farmers. 2 key findings →
Participants: 5,765
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This comprehensive portrait of rural-urban differences in dementia care highlights possible geographically based inequities and can be used by researchers and decision makers to guide development of more equitable dementia care policies. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-11-21
The sample included 4340 adults (mean [SD; range] age, 58.1 [1.1; 56-63] years; 2400 [55.3%] women); 630 (14.4%) were Black, 900 (20.7%) were Latinx, and 2610 (60.1%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 4,340
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2026-03-18
Among 283,772 participants (mean [SD] age 64.62 [8.96] years; 56.7% women), 60.3% identified as non-Hispanic White and 13.3% as Hispanic/Latino. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 283,772
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
There are a substantial number of people with dementia worldwide and these numbers will continue to increase mainly in LMIC, producing a wide range of impacts. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to examine the relationship between ethnic minority status and provision of end-of-life care for people with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
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 28,980 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.