83/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 83 out of 100.
·
JAMA Neurology
·
2025-05-01
ARIA is an adverse event associated with donanemab treatment that requires safety monitoring. 4 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial
Participants: 3,030
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
81/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 81 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2022-11-01
There were 813 participants in CREAD (mean [SD] age, 70.7 [8.2] years; 483 female and 330 male) and 806 in CREAD2 (mean [SD] age, 70.9 [7.7] years; 456 female and 350 male). 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial
Participants: 3,664
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
·
2022-08-01
In participants with prodromal to mild AD in this randomized clinical trial, semorinemab did not slow clinical AD progression compared with placebo throughout the 73-week study period but did demonstrate an acceptable and well-tolerated safety profile. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial
Participants: 422
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
77/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2020-09-01
No clinically important adverse events were associated with treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial
Participants: 432
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
77/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2025-01-01
These results show that in addition to APOE ε4 allele count, severity of Aβ neuropathology and comorbid cerebrovascular pathology may be relevant for clinicians prescribing anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies for early AD and developing individualized safety monitoring plans. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial
Participants: 985
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.
·
BMJ
·
2024-04-17
Antipsychotic use compared with non-use in adults with dementia was associated with increased risks of stroke, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, heart failure, fracture, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury, but not ventricular arrhythmia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 173,910
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Although monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid provide small benefits on cognitive and functional scales in patients with Alzheimer dementia, these improvements are far below the MCID for each outcome and are accompanied by clinically meaningful harms. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 23,202
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.
·
Neurology
·
2018-04-25
Although prespecified criteria for testing treatment effects were not met, these data suggest a potential treatment effect in patients with mild AD treated with high-dose crenezumab. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial
Participants: 184
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
73/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2021-03-01
change from baseline in Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite score. 5 key findings →
Participants: 189
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
72/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2019-01-01
There was no difference in the age (mean [SD], 74.17 [7.96] years), sex (12 women [67%]), or baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score (mean [SD], 19.39 [3.24]) between the crossover (n = 9) and open-label groups (n = 9). 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
71/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.
·
JAMA Neurology
·
2025-07-01
The most significant adverse events associated with these therapies are infusion-related reactions and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) with edema/effusion (ARIA-E) and/or hemorrhage/hemosiderin deposition (ARIA-H). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 234
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
71/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2022-06-01
Among 16 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 32.6 (4.4) years; 9 participants were women, and 7 were men. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Group differences were seen in skin and subcutaneous tissue concerns (P=.05), including 3 possible drug rashes and 3 reports of hair color change in the treatment groups. 2 key findings →
Participants: 15
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
·
2020-06-16
Although antipsychotics were associated with greater harm than antidepressants and anticonvulsants in subgroups of persons with dementia, medications used in lieu of antipsychotics for treating neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia, such as anticonvulsants and dextromethorphan-quinidine, were also associated with harm. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 209
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This study found no effect of ongoing BDZR use on ADAS-Cog scores in those with mild to moderate AD over 18 months. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 448
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
As galantamine slowed the decline of functional ability as well as cognition, its effects are likely to be clinically relevant. 1 key finding →
Participants: 653
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
60/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-10-01
In this national case-control study of nursing home residents with ADRD receiving hospice care, initiation of benzodiazepine or antipsychotic use was associated with increased 180-day mortality. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control
Participants: 139,103
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This study indicates no benefits for memantine in the long-term treatment and prophylaxis of clinically significant neuropsychiatric symptoms. 5 key findings →
Participants: 199
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
In AD patients with symptoms of psychosis, agitation, or aggressive behavior, medications can have a small but significant impact on caregiver burden. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial
Participants: 361
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Of the total of 1795 subjects randomized in Clarity AD, 294 subjects were in the Asian region (Japan:152; Korea:129; Singapore:13). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial
Participants: 294
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This study will provide clinically relevant data on the likelihood and time to relapse, and predictors of relapse, in patients switched from risperidone to placebo after response to risperidone treatment. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
ARIA-positive patients had significantly higher Fazekas scores compared with ARIA-negative patients (1.37 versus 1.0; P = .0262), indicating a greater DWMH burden. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 27
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
55/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.
·
JAMA cardiology
·
2022-01-01
Of 102 607 individuals in the study, 56 559 (55%) were women (median age, 58 years [IQR, 47-67 years]). 5 key findings →
Participants: 607
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Guidelines recommend limiting antipsychotic treatment to short-term use ( Methods Using UK primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, linked with hospital and mortality data from Jan 1, 1998, to March 31, 2021, we emulated two sets of target trials, one after 12 weeks of antipsychotic treatment and another after 24 weeks of antipsychotic treatment, to compare continuing treatment versus tapering treatment and continuing treatment versus abrupt discontinuation of treatment. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 24,822
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
53/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2019-11-01
Of 482 participants in the safety population, 140 of 158 participants (88.6%) assigned to placebo, 117 of 166 participants (70.5%) to 224 mg of edonerpic maleate, and 120 of 158 participants (76.0%) to 448 mg of edonerpic maleate completed the trial. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial
Participants: 482
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 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.