87/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 87 out of 100.
·
Diabetes care
·
2015-12-17
Study-level data from 14 studies, 2,310,330 individuals, and 102,174 dementia case patients were included. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 2,310,330
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
84/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 84 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2015-05-01
Among persons without dementia, the prevalence of cerebral amyloid pathology as determined by positron emission tomography or cerebrospinal fluid findings was associated with age, APOE genotype, and presence of cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 2,914
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
82/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 82 out of 100.
·
JAMA Neurology
·
2023-12-01
Among 68 756 unique individuals, analyses included 21 852 East Asian (demographic data not available), 5738 Hispanic (68.2% female; mean [SD] age, 75.4 [8.8] years), 7145 non-Hispanic Black (hereafter referred to as Black) (70.8% female; mean [SD] age, 78.4 [8.2] years), and 34 021 non-Hispanic White (hereafter referred to as White) (59.3% female; mean [SD] age, 77.0 [9.1] years) individuals. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control
Participants: 68,756
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
82/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 82 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2015-05-01
The likelihood of amyloid positivity was associated with age and APOE ε4 status. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 377
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
82/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 82 out of 100.
·
Nature genetics
·
2011-04-03
The Alzheimer Disease Genetics Consortium (ADGC) performed a genome-wide association study of late-onset Alzheimer disease using a three-stage design consisting of a discovery stage (stage 1) and two replication stages (stages 2 and 3). 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The 172 total participants had a mean (SD) age of 75.7 (4.8) years, and 108 (62.8%) were women. 4 key findings →
Participants: 172
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
80/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 80 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2010-11-01
Epidemiological studies suggest that consumption of DHA is associated with a reduced incidence of Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Participants: 102
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
80/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 80 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2023-07-03
Good sleep is essential for health, yet associations between sleep and dementia risk remain incompletely understood. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 5,946
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
79/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2026-07-13
The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I2 = 95%). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 49,227
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
79/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2022-06-01
The findings suggest that risk factors associated with ADRDs have changed over the past decade and differ based on sex and race and ethnicity. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 378
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The task force issued five statements related to the management of anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adults admitted to the ICU. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 24
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Participants had a mean age of 73.4 years; 62.7% were women, and 34.9% were Hispanic or nonwhite. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 126
Evidence: high
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
77/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.
·
PLoS medicine
·
2019-07-23
With no effective treatments for cognitive decline or dementia, improving the evidence base for modifiable risk factors is a research priority. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 48,522
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
We found a sequence to pathological changes, with rates of Aβ deposition in mutation carriers being significantly different from those in non-carriers first (across regions that showed a significant difference, at a mean of 18·9 years [SD 3·3] before expected onset), followed by hypometabolism (14·1 years [5·1] before expected onset), and lastly structural decline (4·7 years [4·2] before expected onset). 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 346
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The 780 PWDs (56.3% female; mean [SD] age, 78.1 [9.9] years) and 780 caregivers (70.9% female; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [12.0] years) lived in California (n = 452), Nebraska (n = 284), or Iowa (n = 44). 2 key findings →
Participants: 452
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
77/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.
·
Nature medicine
·
2025-03-31
Rates of cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD) are extremely heterogeneous. 1 key finding →
Design: case-control study
Participants: 3,397
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.
·
Neurology
·
2004-08-01
A total of 267 (3.8%) women had diabetes and 297 (4.2%) had IFG. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 267
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
77/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.
·
Genome biology
·
2025-07-17
Using cross-population GWAS meta-analyses, we identify novel LOAD susceptibility loci in/near LRRC4C and LHX5-AS1, both with known roles in neuronal development, as well as several novel population-unique loci. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 409,589
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2019-04-01
Among 16 008 registered participants, 11 409 (71.3%) completed study procedures and were included in the analysis (median age, 75 years [interquartile range, 71-80]; 50.9% women; 60.5% with MCI). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 16
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Ann Neurol 2018;84:737-748. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 443
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2020-05-01
Outpatient PC is associated with benefits among patients with PDRD compared with standard care alone. 5 key findings →
Participants: 584
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
Nature medicine
·
2024-05-17
p75 neurotrophin receptor (p75 NTR ) signaling pathways substantially overlap with degenerative networks active in Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Participants: 242
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Whilst cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and positron emission tomography (PET) biomarkers for amyloid-β (Aβ) and tau pathologies are accurate for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), their broad implementation in clinical and trial settings are restricted by high cost and limited accessibility. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 1,000
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2005-01-01
The presence of multiple cardiovascular risk factors at midlife substantially increases risk of late-life dementia in a dose dependent manner. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 8,845
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
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.