Bapineuzumab did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with Alzheimer's disease, despite treatment differences in biomarkers observed in APOE ε4 carriers. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial
Participants: 1,090
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Decades of research have revealed numerous risk factors for mental disorders beyond genetics, but their consistency and magnitude remain uncer-tain. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 176
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.
·
Neurology
·
2011-07-27
Simvastatin had no benefit on the progression of symptoms in individuals with mild to moderate AD despite significant lowering of cholesterol. 4 key findings →
Participants: 406
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
74/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2015-11-01
Avagacestat did not demonstrate efficacy and was associated with adverse dose-limiting effects. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 263
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.
·
JAMA
·
1996-12-01
A program of counseling and support can substantially increase the time spouse-caregivers are able to care for AD patients at home, particularly during the early to middle stages of dementia when nursing home placement is generally least appropriate. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
69/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2023-06-01
EDIC participants had consistently higher brain age values compared with controls without diabetes, indicative of approximately 6 additional years of brain aging (EDIC participants: β, 6.16; SE, 0.71; control participants: β, 1.04; SE, 0.04; P Conclusions and relevance The findings of this study suggest an increase in brain aging among individuals with T1D without any early signs of AD-related neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 416
Evidence: high
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
·
2015-04-01
At 48 months, group differences between clinical progressors and non-progressors were significant for self (2.13, SE=0.45, P Conclusions and relevance Demonstrating long-term clinical benefit will be critical for the success of recently launched secondary prevention trials. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 468
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
NPTs emerge as a useful, versatile and potentially cost-effective approach to improve outcomes and QoL in ADRD for both the PWD and CG. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This study is an extension of a 28-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of memantine in 252 patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial
Participants: 175
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
The diagnostic performance of plasma biomarkers was poor (area under the curve [AUC] between 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·62] and 0·74 [0·66-0·82]) except for plasma NfL concentrations, which had an AUC of 0·88 (0·82-0·93) for the differentiation of the asymptomatic group versus the prodromal Alzheimer's disease group and 0·95 (0·92-0·98) for the asymptomatic group versus the Alzheimer's disease dementia group. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 282
Evidence: low
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
·
2021-08-01
Previous studies have suggested that the APOE ɛ4 allele plays a role in the risk and age at onset of dementia in DS; however, data on in vivo biomarkers remain scarce. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
SCD can precede both AD and non-AD dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 2,978
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 genetics
·
2021-02-15
The genetic basis of Lewy body dementia (LBD) is not well understood. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Two hundred fifty-two patients (67 percent women; mean age, 76 years) from 32 U.S. centers were enrolled. 3 key findings →
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.
·
Sleep
·
2019-06-01
Study objectives To determine the effect of self-reported clinical diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) on longitudinal changes in brain amyloid PET and CSF biomarkers (Aβ42, T-tau, and P-tau) in cognitively normal (NL), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease (AD) elderly. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 516
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
·
2011-04-27
Changes in functional connectivity in DLB indicate patterns of activation that are distinct from those seen in AD and may improve discrimination of DLB from AD and cognitively normal individuals. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 88
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The objective of this study was to investigate whether increased NLR in older adults is independently associated with the risk of subsequent dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 1,648
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Clinicopathologic correlation studies are critically important for the field of Alzheimer disease (AD) research. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This initial report describes the ongoing 4-year longitudinal study and provides baseline results, which confirm the feasibility of obtaining home-based clinical information via mail or telephone. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 644
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
Cognitive dysfunction, including dementia and delirium, is prevalent in geriatric emergency department (ED) patients, but often remains undetected. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 163
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.
·
Science
·
2013-10-17
The conservation of sleep across all animal species suggests that sleep serves a vital function.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
There is increasing evidence that subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in individuals with unimpaired performance on cognitive tests may represent the first symptomatic manifestation of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
This Primer conceptualizes Alzheimer disease (AD) as a genetic and sporadic neurodegenerative disorder driven by a complex interplay between loss of synaptic homeostasis and endosomal/lysosomal clearance pathway dysfunction, in which Aβ and tau products play key roles. 4 key findings →
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
We used MRI volume sampling with coregistered and atrophy corrected FDG-PET scans to test three hypotheses: 1) hippocampal formation measures are superior to temporal neocortical measures in the discrimination of normal (NL) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI); 2) neocortical measures are most useful in the separation of Alzheimer disease (AD) from NL or MCI; 3) measures of PET glucose metabolism (MRglu) have greater diagnostic sensitivity than MRI volume. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
59/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.
·
The Lancet
·
2020-06-01
Between Feb 1, 2013, and June 28, 2019 (Barcelona), and between June 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2014 (Cambridge), we included 388 participants with Down syndrome (257 [66%] asymptomatic, 48 [12%] with prodromal Alzheimer's disease, and 83 [21%] with Alzheimer's disease dementia) and 242 euploid controls.
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.