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
75/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2021-02-01
Among 34 349 participants, 26 088 who self-reported Black or White race, were free of stroke and dementia, and had covariate data at or before the first cognitive assessment were included for analysis. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 349
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 network open
·
2026-03-02
Across the cohorts, each 10-year increase in BAI was associated with a 39% higher risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.21-1.59]; P Conclusions and relevance In this IPD meta-analysis, a higher sleep EEG-based BAI was associated with a higher risk of incident dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 7,105
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 Network Open
·
2024-07-01
Participants receiving CDCM showed significantly fewer behavioral and psychological symptoms (adjusted mean difference [AMD] in NPI score, -10.26 [95% CI, -16.95 to -3.58]; P = .003; Cohen d, -0.78 [95% CI, -1.09 to -0.46]), better mental health (AMD in SF-12 Mental Component Summary score, 2.26 [95% CI, 0.31-4.21]; P = .02; Cohen d, 0.26 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.51]), and lower caregiver burden (AMD in BIZA-D score, -0.59 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.37]; P Conclusions and relevance In this secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial, CDCM was associated with improved patient, caregiver, and health system-relevant outcomes over 36 months beyond the intervention period. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT
Participants: 428
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
70/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2022-04-01
These findings suggest that this blood biomarker test could allow for distinguishing individuals with brain amyloid-positive PET findings from individuals with amyloid-negative PET findings and serve as an aid for Alzheimer disease diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 249
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 network open
·
2019-07-03
Increasing evidence suggests an important role of liver function in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,581
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 Network Open
·
2024-12-12
The study consisted of 20 400 patients (9264 female [45.4%]; 1576 Black [7.7%], 3944 Latinx [19.3%], and 10 480 White [51.4%]), including 5100 patients with mTBI (median [IQR] age, 36.0 [25.0-51.0] years), 5100 patients with msTBI (median [IQR age, 35.0 [25.0-52.0] years), and 10 200 matched patients in the control group (median [IQR] age, 36.0 [25.0-51.0] years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 400
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.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2023-10-02
In this study, terminating metformin treatment was associated with increased dementia incidence. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 41,346
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.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2024-07-01
In this cohort and MR study of UK Biobank participants, cataracts were associated with increased risk of dementia, especially vascular dementia, and reduced total brain volumes. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 304,953
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
62/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-02-26
A total of 2603 men with nonmetastatic PCa (mean [SD] age, 69.6 [7.1] years) were followed up, and 1346 deaths were documented, including 356 (24.6%) from CVD and 197 (14.6%) from PCa. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 2,603
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.
·
JAMA network open
·
2022-06-01
To evaluate reverse causation, we assessed whether a polygenic risk score for AD is associated with HGS. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
60/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2020-10-01
Several clinical trials are planned for familial forms of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (f-FTLD). 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study
Participants: 100
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
60/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2023-08-30
Among 1614 older adults (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [8.7] years; 980 women [60.7%]), 853 were Mexican American (mean [SD] age, 63.9 [7.9] years; 566 women [66.4%]), and 761 were non-Hispanic White (mean [SD] age, 69.1 [8.7] years; 414 women [54.4%]). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 280
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
57/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2024-05-31
Among 9239 eligible respondents, 5258 (57.7%) were female and 1210 (9.1%) were Black, 574 (4.7%) were Hispanic, and 7297 (84.4%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
56/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-04-18
ADNI participants (921 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (7) years and mean (SD) of 17 (3) years of education; 485 (53%) were female, 30 (3%) were Asian, 105 (11%) were Black, and 756 (82%) were White. eVAL participants (279 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (8) years and mean (SD) of 17 (2) years of education; 151 (54%) were female, 17 (6%) were Asian, 12 (4%) were Black, and 245 (88%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 921
Evidence: moderate
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
·
2021-07-01
Amyloid PET and sleep duration information was acquired on 4425 cognitively unimpaired participants (mean [SD] age, 71.3 [4.7] years; 2628 [59.4%] female; 1509 [34.1%] tested Aβ positive). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
54/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-03-06
Of 8976 decedents (mean [SD] age, 81.3 [8.6] years; 4927 women [55.1%] women) in the cohort, 2197 (22.5%) were included in the low wealth category, 4534 (50.5%) in the medium wealth category, and 2245 (27.1%) in the high wealth category. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
53/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-03-04
Of 11 327 324 Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in hospice between 2010 and 2020 who met eligibility criteria (mean [SD] age, 85.2 [7.5] years; 781 763 [63.0%] female), there were 958 182 (8.4%) with a primary diagnosis of AD, 232 864 (2.1%) with PD, and 49 340 (0.4%) with DLB. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
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
·
2026-07-01
In vivo biomarkers for detecting neuropathologies from repetitive head impacts (RHI), including chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), are needed. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study
Participants: 231
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.