The systematic review and NMA includes 493 168 participants from 869 trials (adding 53 trials since October 2022) reporting data for 13 drug classes (63 drugs) and 26 outcomes of interest. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 168
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Eight studies with 377,060 subjects were included in the analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 377,060
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
88/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 88 out of 100.
·
BMC medicine
·
2025-04-07
Our analysis encompassed 22 RCTs involving 138,282 participants (mean age 64.8 years, 36.4% female). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 138,282
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
GLP-1 RA therapy did not alter amyloid-β and tau biomarkers nor show improvements in cognition but showed potential metabolic and neuroprotective benefits. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 1,444
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Newer GLDs were associated with a decreased risk of all-cause dementia in people with T2D. Because of the observational nature and significant heterogeneity between studies, the results should be interpreted with caution. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 819,511
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
From 10,037 records, 82 studies were included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
This analysis indicated that patients with type 2 diabetes under treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors presented with the lowest risk of dementia, followed by those treated with metformin and thiazolidinedione, while treatment with insulin was associated with the highest risk. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 530,355
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Metformin, thiazolidinediones, pioglitazone, GLP1RAs and SGLT2is were associated with reduced risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 100
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Emerging evidence suggests that treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) could be an interesting treatment strategy to reduce neurological complications such as stroke, cognitive impairment, and peripheral neuropathy. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 19
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
A total of seven studies were included. The forest plot results showed that taking lithium therapy reduced the risk of AD (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.78) and is also protective in reducing the risk of dementia (RR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.56-0.77). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
This study (registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018085967) compares the efficacy (i.e. pro-cognitive effects) and acceptability of antidiabetic agents for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 4,855
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 46,836
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Seventeen studies were identified: thirteen cohort studies, two case-control studies, and two nested case-control studies. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
We aimed to summarise current evidence on different antidiabetic drugs to delay cognitive impairment, including mild cognitive impairment, dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia, among subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) is a human incretin hormone derived from the proglucagon molecule. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
While most studies to date have been cross-sectional, limiting the establishment of causal relationships, the potential benefits of trace lithium for suicide prevention and dementia prevention are notable, especially in the absence of radical treatments for suicide and dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
First, sleep problems are associated with accidents and human errors. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
The results showed that intestinal expression of GLP-1 1 could reduce the intestinal pathogenic genus such as Enterobacteriaceae and was obviously associated with a greater number of beneficial genera such as Lactobacillus and Akkermansia. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
70/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.
·
Cancers
·
2023-05-30
Quality pharmacological treatment can improve survival in many types of cancer. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Reversal genes and the candidate compounds were identified by the leave-one-out cross-validation procedure. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
70/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.
·
Redox biology
·
2023-09-07
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an age-dependent neurodegenerative disorder and the most common cause of cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Based on a structured search on the ClinicalTrials.gov and the EudraCT databases, we identified 13 clinical trials testing 11 different approved anticancer agents (five tyrosine kinase inhibitors, two retinoid X receptor agonists, two immunomodulatory agents, one histone deacetylase inhibitor, and one monoclonal antibody) in the AD continuum. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
There is a lack of midlife specific data, limited data on VaD, and a lack of geographical representation for many risk factors for dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
69/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.
·
Neuroepidemiology
·
2016-12-24
Key Messages: Our results suggest that benzodiazepine use is significantly associated with dementia risk. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
66/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.
·
Brain injury
·
2019-04-02
Recent literature shows that GLP-1 and its agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors and combined GLP-1/GIP molecules are effective in partially or fully reversing the effects of neurotoxic compounds, neurovascular complications of diabetes, neuropathological changes related with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease or vascular occlusion. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
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 27,780 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.