78/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2021-01-01
In addition, several loci associated with rare variants, including a genome-wide significant intergenic locus near IGF1R at 15q26 (P = 1.7 × 10-9) and 6 additional loci with suggestive significance (P ≤ 5 × 10-7) such as API5 at 11p12 (P = 8.8 × 10-8) and RBFOX1 at 16p13 (P = 5.4 × 10-7) were identified. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 2,784
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
These results suggest that regular exercise is associated with a delay in onset of dementia and Alzheimer disease, further supporting its value for elderly persons. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,740
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
71/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2012-01-01
Four hundred ninety-four individuals eventually developed dementia and 427 (86%) of these persons were admitted at least once; 2525 remained free of dementia and 1478 (59%) of those were admitted at least once. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 3,019
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
·
2010-02-01
During a mean (SD) follow-up of 6.1 (3.2) years, 1601 participants had no hospitalization, 1287 had 1 or more noncritical illness hospitalizations, and 41 had 1 or more critical illness hospitalizations. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 2,929
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The study cohorts had an average age of 75.0 years (95% CI, 74.8-75.2 years) in 2000 and 74.8 years (95% CI, 74.5-75.1 years) in 2012 (P = .24); 58.4% (95% CI, 57.3%-59.4%) of the 2000 cohort was female compared with 56.3% (95% CI, 55.5%-57.0%) of the 2012 cohort (P Conclusions and relevance The prevalence of dementia in the United States declined significantly between 2000 and 2012. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
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.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2013-02-01
The APOE ϵ4 allele is a strong risk factor across the LBD spectrum and occurs at an increased frequency in pDLB relative to PDD. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study
Participants: 244
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The eMERGE (electronic MEdical Records and GEnomics) Network is an NHGRI-supported consortium of five institutions to explore the utility of DNA repositories coupled to Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems for advancing discovery in genome science. eMERGE also includes a special emphasis on the ethical, legal and social issues related to these endeavors. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Societal investment in building and maintaining cognitive reserve through formal education in childhood and continued cognitive stimulation during work and leisure in adulthood might help limit the burden of dementia among the growing number of older adults worldwide. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 7,406
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
66/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.
·
The Lancet
·
2024-08-10
This expert commission synthesized decades of population-level (observational) research to estimate how much dementia risk could theoretically be reduced by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors across life, from childhood education to late-life social isolation. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic-review
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
66/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2004-12-01
The measured benefits in clinical trials for the treatment of mixed dementia are best described as statistically significant differences in cognitive test scores and clinician and caregiver impressions of change. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
Previously published community- or population-based studies of brain aging and dementia with autopsy were restricted to a single sex, a single ethnic group, Roman Catholic clergy, or focused pathological assessments. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 221
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
Comparing two nationally representative surveys of older Americans 12 years apart, researchers found the share of seniors with dementia fell substantially, from 11.6% in 2000 to 8.8% in 2012. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 21,057
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
During follow-up 319 participants developed dementia (221 had AD). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 2,288
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
Our study has identified not only risk factors associated with functional decline but also the interactions among these factors. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
1996-08-01
Short-term mortality is increased in patients newly diagnosed with probable AD. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 327
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
The eRADAR tool uses existing EHR data to detect patients with good accuracy who may have unrecognized dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 4,330
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
63/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2009-05-01
Higher baseline body mass index (BMI) and slower declining BMI in late life are associated with a reduced risk of dementia, suggesting that low BMI or a faster decline in BMI in late life may be preclinical indicators of an underlying dementing illness, especially for those who were initially overweight or obese. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
One hundred and twenty-six patients diagnosed with Alzheimer-type dementia were selected from among 200 consecutive outpatients evaluated for suspected dementia from 1980 to 1982. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 126
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
Hearing impairment has been hypothesized as contributing to symptoms of dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 36
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
56/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.
·
Nature aging
·
2023-05-18
The increasing number of people with dementia globally illustrates the urgent need to reduce dementia's scale and impact. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The median survival from initial diagnosis was 4.2 years for men and 5.7 years for women with Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
55/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2005-06-01
The authors reviewed 135 subjects from a community-based study of dementia for whom autopsy and brain tissue was available. 4 key findings →
Participants: 135
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
55/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
1989-04-01
We conducted a case-control study in 100 cases who had Alzheimer's-type dementia and 100 age-, sex-, and education-matched, nondemented controls to evaluate the hypothesis that hearing impairment contributes to cognitive dysfunction in older adults. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Cross sectional analysis comparing prospectively collected research data with MDS data reported from nursing homes on identical subjects. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 140
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
53/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2007-08-01
These findings demonstrate an association between antecedent statin use and neurofibrillary tangle burden at autopsy. 4 key findings →
Participants: 110
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
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.