65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2026-04-01
This pilot randomized clinical trial demonstrated the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of LMH-4-DCP in reducing caregiver grief, with improvements in caregiver-care recipient relationship quality. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT
Participants: 68
Evidence: preliminary
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2024-09-03
The mechanism of injury was a fall in 1 228 847 incidents (50.1%). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 2,453,655
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2023-10-02
In this study, terminating metformin treatment was associated with increased dementia incidence. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 41,346
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2024-07-01
In this cohort and MR study of UK Biobank participants, cataracts were associated with increased risk of dementia, especially vascular dementia, and reduced total brain volumes. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 304,953
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2020-07-01
In this randomized clinical trial, rotigotine treatment did not significantly affect global cognition in patients with mild to moderate AD; however, improvement was observed in cognitive functions highly associated with the frontal lobe and in activities of daily living. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 47
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2023-07-03
Among 137 randomized participants, 2 were excluded for not meeting eligibility criteria, leaving 135 (mean [SD] age, 69.3 [3.8] years; 83 female [61%]) eligible for analysis. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-05-13
The study included 732 participants (median [IQR] age, 41 [34.0-48.0] years; 369 [50.4%] male; 64 [8.9%] Black or African American, 587 [81.3%] White, and 71 [9.8%] other races); 414 reported baseline FTS use and 318 did not. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 732
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-11-05
Sample 1 included 1656 participants (mean [range] age, 58.1 [29.7-85.6] years; 903 female [54.5%]), and sample 2 included 935 participants (mean [range] age, 67.6 [60.0-85.6] years; 518 female [55.4%]). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,656
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
65/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-02-25
A total of 450 111 participants were included in the study (mean [SD] age, 51.1 [9.8] years; 70.8% women) and followed up during a median (IQR) time of 14.9 (4.1) years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 111
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
·
2025-12-01
Mean (SD) follow-up was 4.8 (2.6) years. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 298
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
·
2021-10-01
In 303 participants (mean [SD] age, 73.16 [5.19] years, 181 [60%] women, 96 [32%] non-Hispanic White, 113 [37%] Non-Hispanic Black, 94 [31%] Hispanic), baseline WMH volumes were associated with cortical thinning in medial temporal and frontal/parietal regions. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 303
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
·
2019-12-02
The amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) framework uses cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of total tau (tTau) as a marker of neurodegeneration and CSF levels of phosphorylated tau 181 (pTau181) as a marker of tau tangles. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 465
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
·
2025-07-01
The trajectories of core Alzheimer disease (AD) cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers and the concurrent cognitive changes across the clinical spectrum remain unclear yet are important for clinical trial design. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 197
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
·
2021-01-04
Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) and their receptor (RAGE) are implicated in the pathophysiological processes of dementia and potentially underlie the association of diabetes with neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,021
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
·
2020-03-30
The sample included 47 100 Medicare beneficiaries (25 900 women [54.9%]; mean [SD] age, 72.2 [11.4] years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 47
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
·
2020-06-11
The sample consisted of 447 decedents (249 men [56%]; mean [SD] age, 80.3 [9.5] years; median year of death, 2011) spanning 24 years of donation. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 24
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 Network Open
·
2026-04-17
A total of 3363 adults were enrolled in SNAC-K (73.3% participation rate). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 3,363
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
·
2025-11-21
The sample included 4340 adults (mean [SD; range] age, 58.1 [1.1; 56-63] years; 2400 [55.3%] women); 630 (14.4%) were Black, 900 (20.7%) were Latinx, and 2610 (60.1%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 4,340
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
·
2025-02-07
Among 5390 participants (mean [SD] age, 76.9 [4.8] years; 2915 women [54.1%]), there were 2655 individuals (49.3%) with less than 12 years of education. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study
Participants: 1,078
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.
·
JAMA network open
·
2020-03-02
Among patients with breast cancer, tamoxifen and steroidal aromatase inhibitors were associated with a decrease in the number who received a diagnosis of NDD, specifically Alzheimer disease and dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
63/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2025-03-03
These findings suggest that PA may help delay cognitive decline by modulating neurodegeneration and AD-specific tau pathologies. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 1,144
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.
·
JAMA network open
·
2018-10-05
Median (interquartile range) CRP levels increased with mean (SD) age (43.3 [9.6] years, 0.95 mg/L [0.40-2.35 mg/L] vs 59.1 [9.6] years, 2.04 mg/L [0.93-4.75 mg/L] vs 61.6 [9.5] years, 2.21 mg/L [1.05-5.12 mg/L]; P Conclusions and relevance In this study, peripheral chronic low-grade inflammation in participants with ApoE4 was associated with shortened latency for onset of AD. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study
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.
·
JAMA network open
·
2020-10-01
Study results suggest that, after diagnosis, rural Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD spend more time in nursing homes and less time in the community, receive less home health care, and have shorter survival than their urban counterparts. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 561
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.
·
JAMA network open
·
2024-10-01
It remains unclear which risk factors accelerate brain atrophy along with a progression from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 185
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.