We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Recently, we showed that behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease cause atrophy within two major networks, an anterior 'Salience Network' (atrophied in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia) and a posterior 'Default Mode Network' (atrophied in Alzheimer's disease). 3 key findings →
Participants: 12
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2002-04-01
Patients were divided into a development (n = 3859) and validation (n = 1929) cohort. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,859
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2021-06-01
These findings highlight substantial disparities in the timeliness and comprehensiveness of dementia diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 993
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
Sleep
·
2016-09-01
Study objectives Sleep duration has been associated with risk of dementia and stroke, but few studies have investigated the relationship between sleep duration and brain MRI measures, particularly in middle age. 3 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Persistent pain was associated with accelerated memory decline and increased probability of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
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.
·
Nature medicine
·
2020-03-02
With the potential development of new disease-modifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) therapies, simple, widely available screening tests are needed to identify which individuals, who are experiencing symptoms of cognitive or behavioral decline, should be further evaluated for initiation of treatment. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
Nature
·
2022-02-23
A hallmark pathological feature of the neurodegenerative diseases amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is the depletion of RNA-binding protein TDP-43 from the nucleus of neurons in the brain and spinal cord 1 . 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
Nature
·
2022-02-23
Variants of UNC13A, a critical gene for synapse function, increase the risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia 1-3 , two related neurodegenerative diseases defined by mislocalization of the RNA-binding protein TDP-43 4,5 . 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2014-04-01
Identifying a clinical distinction between the invariably lethal prion disease Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) and nonprion rapidly progressive dementias is important and sometimes difficult; thus, reliable tools for diagnosis are in great demand. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 30
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2026-03-18
Among 283,772 participants (mean [SD] age 64.62 [8.96] years; 56.7% women), 60.3% identified as non-Hispanic White and 13.3% as Hispanic/Latino. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 283,772
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.
·
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
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2025-03-19
Of 733 participants (mean age 82.5 ± 2.9 years), 164 (22.4%) developed MCI and 93 (12.7%) developed dementia by the follow-up visit. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 321
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
MarkVCID2 enrolled 1883 individuals age 73.4 ± 7.5 years, 65.0% female, 24.2% Hispanic, and 27.1% non-Hispanic Black. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 1,883
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This study proposes a model that relates disease stages to Alzheimer's disease biomarkers.
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This study updated a 2010 hypothetical model of major Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers based on new evidence. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2011-02-16
This article provides a classification of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and its 3 main variants to improve the uniformity of case reporting and the reliability of research results. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
4 key findings →
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
63/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2026-04-01
Female individuals had higher plaque burden than male individuals (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% CI, 1.67-2.29; P Conclusions and relevance The findings indicate that female sex, APOEε4, and both race and African ancestry were jointly associated with amyloid in this study population. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 2,268
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
·
2017-12-27
Both CSF p-tau and NfL correlate with disease severity and rate of disease progression in PSP. 4 key findings →
Participants: 50
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.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2025-09-01
Of 18 293 participants included in the parent study, scan images were available for 10 774 (59%), of which Centiloids were successfully calculated for 10 361 (96%). 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 294
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.
·
PLoS medicine
·
2017-03-21
Overall, cumulative incidence was uniformly higher in NACC than in the population-based cohorts. 3 key findings →
Participants: 5,073
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
·
2015-12-07
More research is needed to elucidate the neural mechanisms underlying these regional associations, which may involve motor and sensorimotor circuits hitherto largely neglected in the pathophysiology of AD. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
When compared to post-mortem amyloid burden, low proposed thresholds were more sensitive than high thresholds (sensitivities: distribution volume ratiolow 81.0%, standard uptake value ratiolow 83.3%; distribution volume ratiohigh 61.9%, standard uptake value ratiohigh 62.5%) for CERAD moderate-to-frequent neuritic plaques, with similar specificity (distribution volume ratiolow 95.8%; standard uptake value ratiolow, distribution volume ratiohigh and standard uptake value ratiohigh 100.0%). 2 key findings →
Participants: 50
Evidence: low
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 28,180 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.