64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2025-03-19
Of 733 participants (mean age 82.5 ± 2.9 years), 164 (22.4%) developed MCI and 93 (12.7%) developed dementia by the follow-up visit. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 321
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Researchers analyzed population-based data and relative risks from existing meta-analyses to estimate the population-attributable risk of Alzheimer's disease worldwide, in the USA, Europe, and the UK for seven potentially modifiable risk factors.
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
2 key findings →
Evidence: low
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
·
2023-08-30
Among 1614 older adults (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [8.7] years; 980 women [60.7%]), 853 were Mexican American (mean [SD] age, 63.9 [7.9] years; 566 women [66.4%]), and 761 were non-Hispanic White (mean [SD] age, 69.1 [8.7] years; 414 women [54.4%]). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 280
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The 2,641 participants had a mean (SD) age of 74 (2.8) years at baseline; 53 % were female, 36 % were of Black race, and had a range of baseline CKM: 3 % Stage 0 (no CKM), 4 % Stage 1 (excess/dysfunctional adiposity), 26 % Stage 2 (metabolic risk factors), 24 % Stage 3 (subclinical CVD and CKD), and 43 % Stage 4 (clinical CVD and CKD). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 3,075
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 Network Open
·
2024-05-31
Among 9239 eligible respondents, 5258 (57.7%) were female and 1210 (9.1%) were Black, 574 (4.7%) were Hispanic, and 7297 (84.4%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
After adjusting for demographics, apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 status, cognition, and comorbidities, the highest tertile of REM latency was associated with higher Aβ burden (β = 0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03 to 0.13, p = 0.002), elevated p-tau181 (β = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.13, p = 0.002), and reduced BDNF levels (β = -0.47, 95% CI: -0.68 to -0.13, p = 0.013), compared to the lowest tertile. 5 key findings →
Participants: 128
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.
·
JAMA Neurology
·
2025-06-09
Among the 1 268 599 participants (mean age, 73.9 [SD, 6.1] years; n = 25 335 [2%] female), dementia incidence rates per 1000 person-years were lowest in the Mid-Atlantic (11.2; 95% CI, 11.1-11.4) and highest in the Southeast (14.0; 95% CI, 13.8-14.2). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 25
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
We identify three distinct profiles: active healthy sleepers (AHS; 64.0%), fragmented poor sleepers (FPS; 14.1%), and long and frequent nappers (LFN; 21.9%). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
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 Network Open
·
2025-03-04
Of 11 327 324 Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in hospice between 2010 and 2020 who met eligibility criteria (mean [SD] age, 85.2 [7.5] years; 781 763 [63.0%] female), there were 958 182 (8.4%) with a primary diagnosis of AD, 232 864 (2.1%) with PD, and 49 340 (0.4%) with DLB. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
= 0.006). Univariable MR analyses indicated that education and participation reduced the risk of AD. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Higher BAG (pDeepBrainNet = 0.0002; pBrainAgeR = 0.00117) and lower hippocampal volume (p = 0.0015) and cortical thickness (p < 0.0001) were associated with worse clinical status (higher CDR). 2 key findings →
Participants: 2,870
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
We analyzed data from 3433 dementia-free participants with either magnetic resonance imaging or positron emission tomography (PET) data at baseline (mean [standard deviation] age: 65 [9] years, 36% non-Hispanic White [NHW], 27% Black, 37% Hispanic, and 63% women). 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
We found a dose‐dependent association between ADI and dementia The ADI may be a valuable tool for identifying high‐risk communities for dementia intervention. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,395,872
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Using a large and diverse community‐based cohort, we demonstrate that ethno‐racial differences in AD‐specific plasma biomarkers are, in part, due to modifiable health and comorbidity factors. 2 key findings →
Participants: 931
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Caregivers were on average 64 years old, 72% female, and 49% were the spouse of the patient (32% wives, 17% husbands). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Older age, White race, APOE ε4 carrier, and diabetes were associated with biomarker levels indicative of higher AD risk (lower Aβ42/40; higher p-tau217, p-tau217/Aβ42, NfL, and GFAP). 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,356
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
40/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.
·
PubMed
·
1999-05-01
At baseline, 211 (3.6%) of the women had 6 or more depressive symptoms. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
All the five dimensional SDOH disadvantages were significantly associated with higher odds of both dementia and MCI in the overall sample (p <0.05) (Figure 1). 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,229
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, APOE ε4, and physical activity, a greater multimorbidity burden (per 3 additional conditions) was associated with worse overall cognition (standardized β = -0.074, 95%CI -0.104 to -0.043) and biomarkers indicative of greater AD pathology, neurodegeneration, and SVD (Figure 1). 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, APOE ε4, and physical activity, a greater multimorbidity burden (per 3 additional conditions) was associated with worse overall cognition (standardized β =-0.074, 95%CI -0.104 to -0.043) and biomarkers indicative of greater AD pathology, neurodegeneration, and SVD (Figure 1). 5 key findings →
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
- 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 27,380 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.