Moreover, biomarker plasma levels and rates of change over time of participants who developed Alzheimer's disease dementia during follow-up were compared with age and sex-matched dementia-free control subjects. 5 key findings →
Participants: 549
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Of 31 624 156 adults discharged from French hospitals between 2008 and 2013, 1 109 343 were diagnosed with dementia and were included in the analyses. 2 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort
Participants: 156
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Twelve articles-published between the 2007 and 2017-have been included in this systematic review after a quantitative and qualitative selection. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
68/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2020-08-01
In this study, elevated [18F]RO948 SUVRs were most often seen among Aβ-positive cases, which suggests that [18F]RO948 has high specificity for AD-type tau and highlights its potential as a diagnostic marker in the differential diagnosis of AD. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 257
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
68/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2017-11-01
Our prospective findings provide evidence for what may be an early contributory role of systemic inflammation in neurodegeneration and cognitive aging. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,633
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.
·
JAMA network open
·
2019-05-03
In this study, lower AD signature region volumes, brain microhemorrhages, higher WMH volumes, and infarcts were risk factors associated with dementia in older community-based residents. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,553
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
These samples were graded on an ordinal scale and genotyped for variants associated with synucleinopathies. 2 key findings →
Participants: 213
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Where feasible, we combined data to obtain an overall estimate of effect. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
68/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.
·
BMC geriatrics
·
2019-07-02
As one of few meta-analyses comparing different quantities of physical activity and exercise interventions for AD in details, our study suggests that physical activity and exercise can improve cognition of older adults with AD. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 673
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
68/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.
·
BMC geriatrics
·
2016-05-18
This meta-review supports the conclusion that being a caregiver for people with dementia is associated with psychological stress and physical ill-health. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
We estimated how all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality in people with diabetes have changed over time, how the composition of the mortality burden has changed, and how this composition compared with that of the non-diabetes population. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 907
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.
·
Neurology
·
2015-07-15
In the oldest-old, the presence of multiple pathologies is associated with increased likelihood and severity of dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 183
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.
·
Nature genetics
·
2022-11-21
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the leading cause of dementia, has an estimated heritability of approximately 70% 1 . 3 key findings →
Participants: 32,558
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Overall estimates of treatment effect were calculated using a fixed-effect model, and statistical heterogeneity was measured using a standard Chi(2) statistic. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
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
Eighty-one studies with 3347 participants were included in this review. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 3,347
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
68/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2013-10-16
Arterial stiffness was associated with Aβ plaque deposition in the brain, independent of BP and APOE ε4 allele. 5 key findings →
Participants: 91
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
These analyses give a population based estimated median survival for incident dementia of 4.5 years. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 438
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.
·
JAMA surgery
·
2015-12-01
Major postoperative complications and delirium are separately associated with adverse events and demonstrate a combined effect. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 566
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The rising prevalence of dementia will have an impact on acute hospitals. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 617
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Patients with the repeat expansion had significantly more co-morbid FTD than patients without the repeat (50%vs 12%), and a distinct pattern of non-motor cortex changes on high-resolution 3 T magnetic resonance structural neuroimaging. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 49
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.
·
JAMA network open
·
2021-07-01
This cohort study found that COVID-19 mortality decreased over time during 2020 and that patient demographic characteristics and comorbidities were associated with higher clinical severity. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 174
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
On meta-analysis, PARO had no ST or LT compared to UC or AC over 5-12 weeks on agitation (ST vs UC, 4 trials, 153 participants: pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.25; - 0.57 to 0.06; LT vs UC; 2 trials, 77 participants, SMD = -0.24; - 0.94, 0.46), cognition (ST vs UC, 3 trials, 128 participants: SMD= 0.03; -0.32, 0.38), overall neuropsychiatric symptoms (ST vs UC, 3 trials, 169 participants: SMD= -0.01; -0.32, 0.29; ST vs AC, 2 trials, 145 participants: SMD =0.02, -0.71, 0.85), apathy (ST vs AC, 2 trials, 81 participants: SMD= 0.14; 0.29, 0.58), depression (ST vs UC, 4 trials, 181 participants; SMD= 0.08; -0.52, 0.69; LT vs UC: 2 trials, 77 participants: SMD =0.01; -0.75, 0.77), anxiety (ST vs UC: 2 trials, 104 participants, SMD= 0.24; -0.85, 1.33) and quality of life (ST vs UC, 2 trials, 127 participants: SMD=-0.05; -0.52, 0.42; ST vs AC: 2 trials, 159 participants, SMD =-0.36, -0.76, 0.05). 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 153
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Targeted clinical application of specific technologies is poised to revolutionize precision care in dementia as these technologies may be used both by patients and caregivers, and at a systems level to provide safe and effective care. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 1,337
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
68/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.
·
GeroScience
·
2021-11-11
Identification of individuals with increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) is important. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 18,548
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.