Between March 1, 2016, and March 12, 2020, 383 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 383
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Between Feb 24, 2021, and March 5, 2023, 377 dyads were randomly assigned (1:1), 189 to usual treatment and 188 to intervention. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT
Participants: 377
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Between April 30, 2020, and May 9, 2022, we randomly allocated 204 participants (109 [53%] women and 95 [47%] men) to the intervention group and 98 (60 [61%] women and 38 [39%] men) to the control group. 218 (72%) participants at 6 months and 178 (59%) at 12 months provided cost data. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT
Participants: 302
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
APPLE-Tree is an accessible intervention associated with small improvements in cognition, although these results were not statistically significant. 1 key finding →
Design: RCT
Participants: 746
Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Of 23 558 people without pre-existing dementia, 4135 (17·6%) had an admission with delirium. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 23,558
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Frailty, comorbidities, and other age-related diseases were associated with a higher risk of dementia but did not account for the elevated dementia risk observed after severe infections. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 449,223
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Both high baseline GFAP (hazard ratio 3·6, 95% CI 2·2-5·7; p 42/40 , both GFAP (2·6, 1·4-5·0; p=0·0026) and amyloid β 42/40 (2·1, 1·2-3·6; p=0·0091) were independently associated with incident dementia whereas NfL was not (1·4, 0·8-2·5; p=0·28). 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 300
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Poor external validity can result in inadequate treatment decision information. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
An increasing number of cardiometabolic diseases was dose-dependently associated with the decline in cognitive function score (one disease, β=-0·15 [95% CI -0·17 to -0·13]; two diseases, β=-0·37 [-0·40 to -0·34]; three diseases, β=-0·57 [-0·64 to -0·50]), with comorbid diabetes and stroke (β=-0·23 [-0·29 to -0·17]) contributing most strongly to cardiometabolic disease-associated cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 147
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
No significant association was found between MHT use and risk of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 1,016,055
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Female participants had a lower hazard of early-onset dementia compared with males (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61-0·80]). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 544,442
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Music Interventions for Dementia and Depression in Elderly care was a large, multinational, cluster-randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design to examine the effects of group music therapy, recreational choir singing, or both compared with standard care. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT
Participants: 1,021
Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
No significant difference between the three groups in ADAS-Cog was found at the primary endpoint at 15 months (CPR vs health advice, β= -0·04 [95% CI -0·34 to 0·26]; RFM vs health advice, β= -0·14 [-0·44 to 0·15]; CPR vs RFM, β=0·10 [-0·19 to 0·40]) nor at the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. 1 key finding →
Design: RCT
Participants: 456
Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
After adjusting for various risk factors, participants with low socioeconomic status (vs high) had increased risk for early-onset dementia (3·38, 2·61-4·37), and overall lifestyle mediated 3·2% (1·8-5·7) of the association. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 345
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
The combinations of pathologies of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias associated with cognitive and motor decline and their onsets of associations varied; only tau tangles, Parkinson's disease pathology, and macroinfarcts were associated with decline of all three phenotypes. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
The apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene is the best established genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease in later life, with the ε4 allele conferring higher risk. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 9,496
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Social determinants of health (SDHs) are the primary drivers of preventable health inequities, and the associations between SDHs and health outcomes among individuals with type 2 diabetes remain unclear. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 17
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
In those aged 65 years or older, delirium was overall associated (all p<0·001, age and sex adjusted) with dementia ( adj OR 3·63 [95% CI 2·65–4·98]), pre-admission dependency (2·63 [2·02–3·43]), comorbidity burden (1·04 [1·02–1·05]), and frailty (moderate vs low risk 3·62 [2·70–4·85] and high vs low risk 11·85 [7·24–19·42]), with stronger associations in patients without comorbid dementia than in those with comorbid dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 290
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
We aimed to conduct a cost-utility analysis of DREAMS START compared with treatment as usual (TAU). 4 key findings →
Design: RCT
Participants: 377
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
We used Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regressions to assess whether circadian disturbances predict an increased risk of incident Alzheimer's dementia and conversion of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Over a maximum follow-up of 26 years, the median time to event was 1·2 years (IQR 0·2-3·3) in the delirium group and 1·3 years (0·3-3·6) in the control group. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 909
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
We aimed to characterise the brain structure of superagers and identify demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors associated with this phenotype. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 64
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
As randomised trials are not always feasible or practical, observational studies remain crucial for addressing many causal questions in the dementia prevention field. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Individual cardiometabolic disorders and genetic factors are associated with an increased dementia risk; however, the relationship between dementia and cardiometabolic multimorbidity is unclear. 4 key findings →
Participants: 236
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Of 502 535 participants in UK Biobank, 143 215 met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analyses. 68 500 (47·8%) of the participants were pre-frail and 5565 (3·9%) were frail. 4 key findings →
Participants: 535
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.