85/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 85 out of 100.
·
Nature Medicine
·
2025-01-13
Understanding the lifetime risk of dementia can inform public health planning and improve patient engagement in prevention. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort
Participants: 15,043
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
·
2024-10-15
Plasma biomarkers of AD neuropathology, neuronal injury, and astrogliosis increase with age and are associated with known dementia risk factors. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 1,525
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a complex disorder characterised by a broad range of clinical manifestations, differential pathological signatures, and genetic variability. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 3,526
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
·
2019-02-01
Among ambulatory adults with hypertension, treating to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg compared with a goal of less than 140 mm Hg did not result in a significant reduction in the risk of probable dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 4,678
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
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2022-07-01
A large fraction of dementia cases in the US were associated with potentially modifiable risk factors, especially for Black and Hispanic individuals. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review
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
72/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2022-03-01
In this study, risk of dementia significantly increased after ischemic stroke, independent of vascular risk factors. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort
Participants: 379
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 neurology
·
2021-05-01
Intensive treatment was associated with a small but statistically significant greater decrease in hippocampal volume compared with standard treatment, consistent with the observation that intensive treatment is associated with greater decreases in total brain volume. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 1,267
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.
·
Stroke
·
2020-06-10
Periventricular white matter hyperintensities (WMH; PVWMH) and deep WMH (DWMH) are regional classifications of WMH and reflect proposed differences in cause. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 26,654
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
69/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.
·
JAMA Neurology
·
2025-07-01
A total of 7731 participants were included in analysis of risk factors measured at age 45 to 54 years (4494 female [58%]; 2207 Black [29%]; 5524 White [71%]), 12 274 contributed to analysis of risk factors measured at age 55 to 64 years (6698 female [55%]; 2886 Black [24%]; 9388 White [76%]), and 6787 contributed to analysis of risk factors measured at age 65 to 74 years (3764 female [56%], 1375 Black [20%]; 5412 White [80%]). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 12,274
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
We created global rating scoring rules for the CDR ® plus NACC FTLD to detect and track early frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and to conduct clinical trials in FTLD. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 40
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
·
2020-07-01
Among 34 349 participants, 19 378 individuals who were free of stroke and dementia and had longitudinal BP, cognitive, and covariate data were included in the analysis. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 349
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
·
2022-03-01
In this exploratory analysis of a US community-based cohort, several echocardiographic measures of lower LA function were significantly associated with an increased risk of subsequent dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort
Participants: 4,096
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Head injury was associated with risk of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3-1.57), with evidence of dose-response (1 head injury: HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.13-1.39, 2+ head injuries: HR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.86-2.46). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 14,376
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.
·
Neurology
·
2025-09-04
Among 13,875 individuals with nonmissing VRF and outcome data with up to 30 years of follow-up (25% Black, 54% female), 179 developed PD at a mean age of 73.4 years, 94 developed PDD at a mean age of 79.2 years, and 1,791 developed dementia without PD at a mean age of 79.7 years. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 13,875
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
A substantial proportion of the relationship between education and dementia was mediated through mid-life vascular risk factors. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 13,368
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
66/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.
·
Nature genetics
·
2010-02-14
Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is the second most common cause of presenile dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 515
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.
·
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
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
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
64/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.
·
Nature
·
1995-06-01
Researchers isolated transcripts from a chromosomal region linked to an aggressive form of Alzheimer's disease and identified a novel gene transcript. 3 key findings →
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.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2023-07-01
This cohort study using pooled data from 6 cohort studies found that incident MI was not associated with a decrease in global cognition, memory, or executive function at the time of the event compared with no MI but was associated with faster declines in global cognition, memory, and executive function over time. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 30
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.