64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2020-03-30
The sample included 47 100 Medicare beneficiaries (25 900 women [54.9%]; mean [SD] age, 72.2 [11.4] years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 47
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
58/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.
·
PLoS Medicine
·
2018-06-26
This was a retrospective cohort study to examine differences in health service utilization and outcomes between FFS and MA patients in SNFs following hip fracture hospitalization during the period January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015, and followed up until December 31, 2015. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
57/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.
·
JAMA Health Forum
·
2024-03-01
Of 285 297 total patients, 180 283 (63.2%) were female; 586 (0.2%) were American Indian/Alaska Native, 8957 (3.1%) Asian, 28 694 (10.1%) Black, 7406 (2.6%) Hispanic, 1959 (0.7%) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 237 017 (83.1%) non-Hispanic White, and 678 (0.2%) multiracial individuals. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 178
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Lecanemab was approved for early Alzheimer's disease in Japan, with ≈ 6000 patients treated in the first year post approval. 2 key findings →
Participants: 6,000
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The HCRU and costs were greater for AD members during the year prior to diagnosis and during postdiagnosis years 1 and 2 compared to controls. 3 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort
Participants: 3,374
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
54/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2024-04-25
Four states have clinician reporting mandates, 14 have mandates requiring drivers to self-report dementia diagnoses, and 32 states and the District of Columbia do not have explicit requirements. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 35
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
54/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.
·
Medical Care
·
2020-07-23
Total monthly health care costs for individuals with ADRD are statistically greater (P<0.05) than controls beginning in the third month before diagnosis and remain significantly greater through the eighth month following diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 927
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
54/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.
·
Medical Care
·
2026-06-04
For VA and Medicare cohorts, dementia diagnosis was absent in 88.7% and 80.5%, respectively, of follow-up encounters in the other system. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 68,092
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Medicare beneficiaries with a little or a lot of trouble hearing had 18% (95% confidence interval [CI] odds ratio [OR] = 1.10-1.27) and 25% (95% CI OR = 1.07-1.47) increased odds of reporting greater difficulty with understanding Medicare, respectively, compared with those with no hearing trouble. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 10,510
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Among 370,094 persons with dementia, 93,801 (25.4%) were in MA (mean age [SD], 86.9 [7.7], 67.6% female), 39,586 (10.7%) were ACO attributed (mean age [SD], 87.2 [7.6], 67.3% female), and 236,707 (63.9%) were in TM (mean age [SD], 87.0 [7.8], 67.6% female). 5 key findings →
Participants: 370,094
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
53/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2024-09-03
Of the 60 000 869 beneficiaries included (50 853 806 aged 65 years or older [84.8%]; 32 567 891 female [54.3%]; 5 555 571 Hispanic [9.3%]; 6 318 194 non-Hispanic Black [10.5%]; 44 384 980 non-Hispanic White [74.0%]), there were 4 312 496 (7.2%) with highly likely ADRD, 1 124 080 (1.9%) with likely ADRD, and 2 572 176 (4.3%) with possible ADRD, totaling more than 8.0 million with diagnostic evidence of at least possible ADRD. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
53/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.
·
JAMA Health Forum
·
2025-01-10
Of 4240 patients included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 75 [7] years; 2327 [54.9%] female), 1991 were diagnosed with CRC and 2249 with NSCLC. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 4,240
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Intervention participants in all four disease groups had less hospital use and lower hospital costs nonintervention participants, which drove lower overall healthcare costs. 3 key findings →
Participants: 368
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
52/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-04-14
The study sample included 21 193 170 patients with 32 199 587 beneficiary-year observations (mean [SD] age, 75.5 [7.3] years; 18 936 697 [58.8%] female; 983 513 [3.1%] Asian or Pacific Islander, 3 190 515 [9.9%] Black, 2 710 930 [8.4%] Hispanic, and 25 314 629 [78.6%] White). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 21
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
52/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.
·
Medicine
·
2025-06-09
This study evaluates the efficacy, safety, and economics of galantamine in the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) patients, and to provide evidence-based reference for optimizing drug selection, dosing strategies, and reimbursement policies in clinical practice. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
51/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.
·
JAMA Health Forum
·
2023-09-15
The 32 796 872 Medicare beneficiaries in the cohort had a mean (SD) age of 74.0 (12.5) years and included 18 228 513 females (55.6%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 18
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
From both commercial and Medicare Advantage perspectives, mirabegron was the most clinically effective treatment, while oxybutynin was the least expensive. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
51/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.
·
JAMA Health Forum
·
2023-09-15
In this cross-sectional study of the Medicare population with acute and postacute care use, beneficiaries with ADRD had increasing enrollment in the Medicare Advantage program, proportional to the growth in overall enrollment, but their disenrollment from Medicare Advantage in the following year remained higher compared with beneficiaries without ADRD. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 18
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
50/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2023-12-15
This cohort study examines rates of new diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementias among beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage plans vs traditional Medicare from 2016 through 2020. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Of enrollees, 15.9% entered the gap, 2.6% within the first 180 days; among gap enterers, only 6.7% exited again. 5 key findings →
Participants: 287,713
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Comorbidity indices for patients with cognitive impairment increased during the 6-year study period, especially after the index. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,711
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
We found that a larger share of Hispanic Medicare residents that are admitted to nursing homes have ADRD compared with African American and White beneficiaries. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,302,099
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
According to the National Institute on Aging (NIA), there are more than 70 associated genes or genetic areas associated with Alzheimer’s when 20 years ago, we knew of only four (Hodes, 2022). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 42
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
49/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.
·
BMJ
·
2024-03-07
PA policies varied substantially across private insurers in the US. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
TBI had the highest percentage (37%) compared to other conditions, which may be attributed to the prevalent challenge of cognitive impairment in TBI in addition to physical disability. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 2,285
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,380 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.