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.
·
Nature Aging
·
2025-03-28
Plasma p-tau217 and tau positron emission tomography (PET) are strong prognostic biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but their relative performance in predicting future cognitive decline among cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals is unclear. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 1,474
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
·
2025-06-16
Among the 6514 participants (mean age, 69.5 years; 50.5% female), median follow-up time ranged from 1.5 to 4.0 years. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 6,514
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
These data suggest a revision of the original ADAPT hypothesis that NSAIDs reduce AD risk, as follows: NSAIDs have an adverse effect in later stages of AD pathogenesis, whereas asymptomatic individuals treated with conventional NSAIDs such as naproxen experience reduced AD incidence, but only after 2 to 3 years. 5 key findings →
Participants: 54
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
72/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.
·
JAMA Neurology
·
2025-11-01
Participants had a mean (SD) age of 66.9 (9.9) years; 971 (33.3%) were Aβ positive by either CSF or PET, 1667 (57.2%) were women, and 1108 (38.1%) carried at least 1 APOE ε4 allele. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 2,916
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
71/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.
·
Nature Medicine
·
2023-04-24
Tau plays a key role in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology, and accumulating evidence suggests that lowering tau may reduce this pathology. 1 key finding →
Design: phase-1-trial
Participants: 46
Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is used to modulate the activity of dysfunctional brain circuits. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis
Participants: 42
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Sleep apnea (SA) is potentially a modifiable risk factor for dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 1,333,424
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
Plasma p-tau217 is a prognostic marker for identifying individuals who will develop cognitive impairment within ten years. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 215
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
70/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2022-03-01
This study found that CSF-based estimates using adjusted data-driven cutoffs were up to 10% higher than PET-based estimates in people without dementia, whereas the results were similar among people with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 97
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
70/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2025-05-15
In DDI (n = 431), participants were classified as CN A-/T- (n = 169), A+/T- (CN = 26, MCI = 24), A+/T+ (CN = 40, MCI = 105), and A-/T+ (CN = 34, MCI = 33), with a mean age of 64.1 years and 55.9% female. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 431
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
68/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2026-04-01
These findings add to growing evidence that women have a differential tau response to Aβ that may emerge at the point of p-tau secretion. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 1,292
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
68/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2020-12-21
The clinical diagnosis of probable AD dementia demonstrated good agreement with biologically defined AD (positive predictive value 85.2%). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 166
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
·
2023-12-01
From the 868 Framingham Heart Study participants who returned for a second PSG, this cohort included 346 participants with a mean age of 69 years (range, 60-87 years); 179 (52%) were female. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 346
Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
66/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2022-10-01
Among 580 participants (PREVENT-AD, 128; HABS, 153; AIBL, 48; Knight ADRC, 251), mean (SD) age ranged from 67 (5) to 76 (6) years across cohorts, with between 55% (137/251) and 74% (95/128) female participants. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 580
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The construct of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has evolved over the past 10 years since the publication of the new MCI definition at the Key Symposium in 2003, but the core criteria have remained unchanged. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This Position Paper evaluates the strengths and limitations of the International Working Group research diagnostic criteria and proposes advances to improve the diagnostic framework for Alzheimer's disease.
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
·
2020-04-01
While APOEε4 is associated with increased amyloid-β burden, its association with cerebral tau pathology has been controversial. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 124
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Mild cognitive impairment is a syndrome defined as cognitive decline greater than expected for an individual's age and education level but that does not interfere notably with activities of daily life. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Studies evaluating the diagnostic test accuracy of plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau) and amyloid beta (Aβ) tests (p-tau217, %p-tau217, p-tau181, p-tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40) compared to reference standard tests (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] AD biomarkers, amyloid positron emission tomography [PET], or neuropathology) in individuals with cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment or dementia) in specialized care settings were included. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The NINCDS-ADRDA and the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are the prevailing diagnostic standards in research; however, they have now fallen behind the unprecedented growth of scientific knowledge. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
63/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.
·
Brain
·
2025-10-03
Using the Swedish BioFINDER-2 cohort [n = 1702, 50.7% male, mean (standard deviation) age 68.4 (12.2) years], we compared the associations between tau/Aβ-PET load and fluid biomarkers alone versus biomarkers in a ratio with a reference protein (Aβ40 or np-tau) in univariate linear regression models. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 1,702
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.
·
Brain
·
2025-04-22
Common variants within TMEM106B are associated with risk for frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP-43 pathology (FTLD-TDP). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 518
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
·
2017-06-28
These findings from healthy high-risk older individuals suggest that OI reflects degree of preclinical AD pathology, while its relationships with age and cognition result from the association of these latter variables with such pathology. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 101
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.