85/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 85 out of 100.
·
Nature Medicine
·
2025-01-13
Understanding the lifetime risk of dementia can inform public health planning and improve patient engagement in prevention. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort
Participants: 15,043
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
73/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100.
·
BMJ
·
2025-01-08
The average life expectancy of people with dementia at time of diagnosis ranged from 5.7 years at age 65 to 2.2 at age 85 in men and from 8.0 to 4.5, respectively, in women. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 5,553,960
Evidence: high
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
·
2025-07-01
A total of 7731 participants were included in analysis of risk factors measured at age 45 to 54 years (4494 female [58%]; 2207 Black [29%]; 5524 White [71%]), 12 274 contributed to analysis of risk factors measured at age 55 to 64 years (6698 female [55%]; 2886 Black [24%]; 9388 White [76%]), and 6787 contributed to analysis of risk factors measured at age 65 to 74 years (3764 female [56%], 1375 Black [20%]; 5412 White [80%]). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 12,274
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 Neurology
·
2025-11-01
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, estimates indicate that FTD is comparable in frequency to dementia with Lewy bodies and occurs at higher rates than progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
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.
·
BMC Medicine
·
2025-02-24
We included 18740 patients (10 205 women [54.5%]; mean [SD] age, 78.2[7.4] years), of which 4271 (22.8%) received at least one prescription for an antidepressant. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 18,740
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Despite remarkable progress in the biomarker field in recent years, local validation of plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and dementia is still lacking in Latin America. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 49
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
Nature Medicine
·
2025-03-26
Evidence regarding the clinical validity of blood biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the general population is limited. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
Brain
·
2025-01-02
Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology have been investigated intensively as markers for AD-related neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 158
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.
·
SLEEP
·
2025-05-16
The pooled sample comprised 4657 participants (30% women) aged ≥ 60 years (mean age was 74 years at sleep assessment). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 2,374
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.
·
Age and Ageing
·
2025-04-28
One million nine hundred twenty-five thousand, five hundred sixty-three individuals were included across the four databases with a median follow-up ranging from 5.6 to 8.4 years. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
npj Vaccines
·
2025-06-25
AS01-adjuvanted shingles (herpes zoster) vaccination is associated with a lower risk of dementia, but the underlying mechanisms are unclear. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 436,788
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
·
2025-04-23
Among 228 392 participants from UKB (n = 137 374; mean [SD] age at baseline, 62.5 [4.1] years; 53.8% female) and AOU (n = 91 018; mean [SD] age at baseline, 66.9 [7.8] years; 57.1% female), those with a history of a clinical exposure at baseline had higher dementia incidence rates compared with those without such history. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 137
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Distinct associations between different traffic noise exposures and incident dementia subtypes were found in this large UK prospective cohort study. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 502,416
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Of 736 patients (245 [33%] female, mean age 68·0 years [SD 11·2], median admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 3 [IQR 1-5]), 557 (76%) were followed up until death or the end of the study, and 706 (96%) contributed to the PSD analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort
Participants: 736
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
62/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2025-04-23
A total of 1,979,509 participants (mean age, 49.0 years; 51.3% men; 50.7% with MetS) were included. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,979,509
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
62/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-11-19
This study included 1526 early adult-life (mean [SD] age, 36.7 [4.7] years; 821 [53.8%] female), 1943 midlife (mean [SD] age, 54.0 [5.8] years; 1010 [52.0%] female), and 885 late-life (mean [SD] age, 71.0 [4.5] years; 473 [53.4%] female) participants. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,526
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
61/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.
·
BMJ
·
2025-05-20
The overall age and sex standardized incidence decreased between 2015 and 2021 from 3.5% to 2.8%. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
61/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.
·
JAMA Neurology
·
2025-04-07
This study included 33 858 patients in the GLP-1RA vs other GLD cohort (mean age, 65 years; 53.1% female), 34 185 patients in the SGLT2i vs other GLD cohort (mean age, 65.8 years; 49.3% female), and 24 117 patients in the GLP-1RA vs SGLT2i cohort (mean age, 63.8 years; 51.7% female). 5 key findings →
Participants: 33
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
61/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.
·
Nature
·
2025-12-17
Our findings suggest a higher prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease dementia in older individuals and a lower prevalence of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease in younger groups than previously estimated 2 . 1 key finding →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This meta-analysis included 21 studies involving 35,449 participants. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 21
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
NEFL (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence intervals (CIs)]: 1.54 [1.29, 1.84]) and RPS6KB1 (HR [95% CI]: 1.33 [1.16, 1.52]) were robustly associated with incident all-cause dementia; MMP12 (HR [95% CI]: 2.06 [1.41, 2.99]) was associated with vascular dementia in ELSA, after correcting for multiple testing. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 3,249
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
As randomised trials are not always feasible or practical, observational studies remain crucial for addressing many causal questions in the dementia prevention field. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
During a median follow-up of 7.98 years, 896 incident dementia cases were identified among study participants. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort
Participants: 31,587
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
26,416 adults we analyzed following propensity-score matching. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 26,416
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
60/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.
·
Age and Ageing
·
2025-01-01
Higher cognitive reserve was associated with better cognition, fewer functional difficulties, more physical activity and better quality of life at baseline but was associated with accelerated cognitive decline and greater dependence over time. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 1,537
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.