79/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2026-07-13
The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I2 = 95%). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 49,227
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
78/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2018-01-01
Dose group efficacy required a significant benefit over placebo for the primary end point and 1 or more key secondary end points. 4 key findings →
Participants: 933
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The neuropathological confirmation of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and tau neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) remains the gold standard for a definitive diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 115
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Whilst cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and positron emission tomography (PET) biomarkers for amyloid-β (Aβ) and tau pathologies are accurate for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), their broad implementation in clinical and trial settings are restricted by high cost and limited accessibility. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 1,000
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
·
2025-03-03
Age, sex, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) are the strongest risk factors for late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 4,592
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 neurology
·
2021-12-01
This study suggests that plasma GFAP is a sensitive biomarker for detecting and tracking reactive astrogliosis and Aβ pathology even among individuals in the early stages of AD. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 300
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
75/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2021-04-01
Exclusion criteria included any significant neurologic disorder other than suspected AD; presence of infection, infarction, or multiple lacunes as detected by magnetic resonance imaging; and any significant systemic condition that could lead to difficulty complying with the protocol. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,113
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Smoothing splines demonstrated that earliest plasma p-tau181 changes occurred even before amyloid-β markers reached abnormal levels, with greater rates of change correlating with increased amyloid-β pathology. 4 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort
Participants: 1,067
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The panel cautions users of this guideline that there is significant variability in diagnostic test accuracy and many commercially available BBM tests do not meet these thresholds, especially using a single cutoff. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic-review
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 neurology
·
2023-06-01
Baseline and 3-month visit data were available for 272 participants in arm 1 and 260 in arm 2 (median [IQR] age: 71 [65-77] and 71 [65-77] years; 150/272 male [55%] and 135/260 male [52%]; 122/272 female [45%] and 125/260 female [48%]; median [IQR] education: 12 [10-15] and 13 [10-16] years, respectively). 3 key findings →
Participants: 844
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
Although studies in animal models suggest that TREM2 is protective against Alzheimer's pathology, its effect on tau pathology and its potential beneficial role in people with Alzheimer's disease is still unclear. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 155
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.
·
Nature medicine
·
2024-05-06
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of APOE4 homozygosity on Alzheimer's disease (AD) by examining its clinical, pathological and biomarker changes to see whether APOE4 homozygotes constitute a distinct, genetically determined form of AD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,297
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
TREM2 is a transmembrane receptor that is predominantly expressed by microglia in the central nervous system. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 1,027
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
·
2026-07-01
The BioFINDER-2 main cohort included 872 participants, with an additional 156 participants in the Knight ADRC cohort for independent validation. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 1,028
Evidence: high
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
After 12 months, no statistically significant difference was observed between MLI+EGCG and MLI+placebo in the PACC-exe (adjusted mean difference [AMD]: 0.12; 95%CI: -0.01, 0.24; p=0.061). 4 key findings →
Participants: 129
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Alzheimer's dementia affects more than 40 million people worldwide with substantial increases in prevalence anticipated. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 24,000
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
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
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 medicine
·
2022-08-11
Blood biomarkers indicating elevated amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology in preclinical Alzheimer's disease are needed to facilitate the initial screening process of participants in disease-modifying trials. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
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
63/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2022-03-15
Further analyses to determine clinical utility are warranted. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,890
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.
·
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
DOPA Decarboxylase (DDC) has been proposed as a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker with increased concentrations in Lewy body disorders (LBDs) and highest levels in patients receiving dopaminergic treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 71
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.