79/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2023-04-01
Among 171 Aβ-positive CU participants included in the main analyses, 119 (mean [SD] age, 73.0 [5.4] years; 60.5% female) were from the BioFINDER-1 study, and 52 (mean [SD] age, 64.4 [4.6] years; 65.4% female) were from the WRAP study. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 564
Evidence: moderate
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
·
2021-08-01
Among 1431 participants, the mean (SD) age was 71.2 (8.8) years; 751 (52.5%) were male. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,135
Evidence: moderate
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
·
2023-06-01
Baseline and 3-month visit data were available for 272 participants in arm 1 and 260 in arm 2 (median [IQR] age: 71 [65-77] and 71 [65-77] years; 150/272 male [55%] and 135/260 male [52%]; 122/272 female [45%] and 125/260 female [48%]; median [IQR] education: 12 [10-15] and 13 [10-16] years, respectively). 3 key findings →
Participants: 844
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
·
2025-11-01
Participants had a mean (SD) age of 66.9 (9.9) years; 971 (33.3%) were Aβ positive by either CSF or PET, 1667 (57.2%) were women, and 1108 (38.1%) carried at least 1 APOE ε4 allele. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 2,916
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
·
2024-10-01
The mean age was 74.2 years (SD, 8.3 years), 48% were women, 23% had subjective cognitive decline, 44% had mild cognitive impairment, and 33% had dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 307
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
70/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2022-03-01
This study found that CSF-based estimates using adjusted data-driven cutoffs were up to 10% higher than PET-based estimates in people without dementia, whereas the results were similar among people with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 97
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
·
2024-06-03
Our study suggests a possible utility of plasma Aβ42/40, P-tau181, and P-tau231 as a noninvasive biomarkers to assess amyloid copathology in DLB, and plasma GFAP and NfL as monitoring biomarkers for cognitive symptoms in DLB. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 89
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 neurology
·
2025-07-01
There were 838 BioFINDER-2 participants (mean age, 73.9 [SD, 7.3] years; 431 women [51%]; 407 men [49%]) and 380 ADNI participants (average age, 72.9 [SD, 7.0] years; 194 women [51%]; 186 mean [49%]) included. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 838
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
67/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2026-09-15
In a pooled sample of multiple selected cohorts of cognitively unimpaired older adults, higher plasma p-tau217 levels were consistently associated with increased risk of clinical progression and accelerated cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 2,684
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Neurofilament proteins have been validated as specific body fluid biomarkers of neuro-axonal injury. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Both high baseline GFAP (hazard ratio 3·6, 95% CI 2·2-5·7; p 42/40 , both GFAP (2·6, 1·4-5·0; p=0·0026) and amyloid β 42/40 (2·1, 1·2-3·6; p=0·0091) were independently associated with incident dementia whereas NfL was not (1·4, 0·8-2·5; p=0·28). 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 300
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.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2023-05-01
Of 386 participants, 199 (52%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 68 (8) years. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 113
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2025-12-01
Mean (SD) follow-up was 4.8 (2.6) years. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 298
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Studies evaluating the diagnostic test accuracy of plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau) and amyloid beta (Aβ) tests (p-tau217, %p-tau217, p-tau181, p-tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40) compared to reference standard tests (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] AD biomarkers, amyloid positron emission tomography [PET], or neuropathology) in individuals with cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment or dementia) in specialized care settings were included. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
63/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2022-03-15
Further analyses to determine clinical utility are warranted. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,890
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
63/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2024-02-20
Across the cohort of 212 individuals with SCD+ (M(Age) = 69.17 years, F 42.45%), 258 individuals with MCI (M(Age) = 72.93, F 43.80%), and 195 individuals with dementia (M(Age) = 74.07, F 48.72%), no main effect of education (ß = 0.52, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.58), but a significant education-by-group interaction on CL values, was found ( p = 0.024) using linear regression modeling. 1 key finding →
Participants: 212
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Obicetrapib significantly slowed AD biomarker progression over 12 months in participants with ASCVD, with the greatest effects in ApoE4 carriers. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Anti-amyloid treatments for early symptomatic Alzheimer disease have recently become clinically available in some countries, which has greatly increased the need for biomarker confirmation of amyloid pathology. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Blood-based markers (BBMs) have recently shown promise to revolutionize the diagnostic and prognostic work-up of Alzheimer's disease (AD), as well as to improve the design of interventional trials.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
58/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2022-05-26
The proposed novel, pragmatic method to determine CSF biomarker cutoffs for AD does not require assessment of other biomarkers or assumptions concerning the clinical diagnosis of patients. 1 key finding →
Participants: 497
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This study reviewed the structure, function, analytical aspects, and age-dependent normal ranges of neurofilaments, providing a comprehensive overview of neurofilament light chain as a marker of axonal injury across various neurological disorders. 2 key findings →
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
56/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2021-06-01
Individuals with early AD show heterogeneity in disease progression, which increases when stratifying on risk factors associated with progression. 3 key findings →
Participants: 302
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 Network Open
·
2026-05-14
In 7989 cognitively unimpaired participants (median [range] age, 54 [30-90] years; 4877 [61.3%] female; mean [SD] BMI, 25.9 [4.2]; mean [SD] eGFR, 80.7 [14.7] mL/min/1.73 m2), older age, lower BMI, and reduced kidney function were associated with increased NfL and GFAP concentrations; female sex was associated with increased GFAP concentrations. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 179
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
52/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2026-08-03
Among 356 patients (79%) with AD as the primary suspected etiology, assessment of BBM classified 149 patients (42%) as high, 101 patients (28%) as intermediate, and 106 patients (30%) as low probability of AD. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 450
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau)181, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light chain (NfL), and amyloid beta ratio (Aβ42/40) may have diagnostic and prognostic value in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 1,298
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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.