Socioeconomic differences in dementia risk can be partly explained by differences in modifiable health conditions and lifestyle factors. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 6,346
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Scale of benefit is comparable with in-person training, indicating its potential as a public health intervention. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 2,912
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
70/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.
·
JAMA psychiatry
·
2020-10-01
Low-dose aspirin did not prevent depression in this large-scale study of otherwise healthy older adults. 3 key findings →
Participants: 114
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Observationally, CVDs were associated with risk of all incident outcomes in meta-analyses, with hazard ratios up to 7.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.20, 7.92). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 10,373
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
70/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.
·
BMJ
·
2025-05-27
Enrolment took place between March 2023 and May 2023. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 4,533
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Despite differences in CVR management within the countries considered, it was possible to design and implement the HATICE multidomain intervention. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
69/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.
·
Age and Ageing
·
2025-10-30
Adult vaccinations, particularly against herpes zoster, influenza, pneumococcus and Tdap, are associated with a lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 104,031,186
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
69/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.
·
PloS one
·
2009-05-13
The management of symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, autonomic symptoms and depression, and the encouragement of physical activity may provide the core elements for the most fruitful strategy to reduce falls in people with dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 179
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
69/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.
·
BMC geriatrics
·
2016-10-12
Studies varied widely in size and quality and therefore we must be circumspect in our conclusions. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 60
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Lifestyle for Brain Health (LIBRA) may help in identifying and monitoring risk status in dementia-prevention programmes, by targeting modifiable, lifestyle-related risk factors. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 949
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Ageing of the population, together with population growth, has brought along an ample increase in the number of older individuals living with dementia and disabilities. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
It is associated with increases in mortality, physical morbidity, length of hospital stay, institutionalisation and costs to healthcare providers. 4 key findings →
Participants: 833
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
We conclude that there is evidence supporting the hypothesis that physical activity is likely to prevent the development of VaD, and should be highlighted as part of secondary prevention programmes in people at risk for cerebrovascular disease. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 1,378
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Controversies persist regarding the association between blood pressure (BP) and the risks of cognitive impairment and dementia due to inconsistent definitions of BP exposure and varying population characteristics. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Modifiable lifestyle risk factors have been identified as playing a major role in the development of dementia; hence, interventions addressing these risk factors represent a significant opportunity to reduce the number of people developing dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Depression is an accepted risk factor for dementia, but it is unclear if this relationship is causal. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 388
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Our results support the benefits of wellness education and yoga for improving partner's burden, mood, and anxiety at one year. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
68/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2007-11-14
Use of NSAIDs was associated with a lower risk of dementia (adjusted hazard ratio or aHR 0.76, 95% CI or CI 0.60-0.96) and, in particular, AD (aHR 0.63, CI 0.45-0.88), but not VaD (aHR 0.92, CI 0.65-1.28). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 3,229
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This retrospective cohort study is to investigate the association between herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections and dementia, and the effects of anti-herpetic medications on the risk involved, using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 33,448
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
68/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.
·
CNS drugs
·
2015-02-01
In the seven longitudinal studies assessing the effect of antihypertensive medication on cognitive impairment or cognitive decline, antihypertensive drugs appeared to be beneficial. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 1,346,176
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
68/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.
·
BMJ open
·
2019-01-25
The strength of the reported associations, the consistency across studies and the suggestion of a dose response supports a need to keep modifiable risk factor exposure to a minimum and to avoid exposure to additional modifiable risks. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Vaccines to prevent herpes zoster have been associated with reduced dementia risk. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 65,800
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Among 12,327 patients who underwent randomization (6162 to the asundexian group and 6165 to the placebo group), the incidence of ischemic stroke was lower in the asundexian group than in the placebo group (6.2% vs. 8.4%; cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.84; P<0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial
Participants: 12,327
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
A total of 5 071 935 participants were included from 27 studies; approximately 49.2% of participants were female, and 14 studies were conducted in Asia, 7 in North America, 3 in Europe, and 3 in Oceania, represented by Australia. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 935
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
The trial occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 106
Evidence: high
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
- 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 30,580 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.