61/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2014-03-12
This JAMA clinical review synthesizes cohort studies and meta-analyses to give physicians practical guidance on recognizing, assessing, and treating caregiver burden. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic-review
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
61/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-06-05
This modeling study projects that the financial toll of Alzheimer's and related dementias will grow very unevenly by race and ethnicity in the US. 4 key findings →
Design: modelling
Participants: 31,028
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
High blood pressure is one of the most important risk factors for ischaemic heart disease, stroke, other cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease and dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
A multidimensional social exposome (MSE)-the combined lifespan measures of education, food insecurity, financial status, access to healthcare, childhood experiences, and more-may shape dementia risk and brain health over the lifespan, particularly in underserved regions like Latin America. 1 key finding →
Participants: 2,211
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Urinary tract infections, pressure areas, pneumonia and delirium are potentially preventable hospital-acquired complications. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Social frailty is associated with physical functioning, cognition, and depression, and predicts mortality. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Much can still be done in the way of service development and provision, GP training and education, and the eradication of stigma attached to dementia, to improve the early detection and management of dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
The results of this review highlight the significant economic burden of dementia for patients, families and healthcare systems and thus are important for future health policy planning. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
Continuing evaluation of DAs in routine practice to support advance care planning is worth exploring further. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Despite methodological inconsistency, supporting caregivers appears to be an effective strategy often improving well-being of caregiver or care-recipient and resulting in additional benefits for society. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Ascertainment of etiologic dementia subtype may inform hereditary risk and facilitate financial and care planning. 2 key findings →
Participants: 226,604
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Eighty six thousand three hundred ninety-six beneficiaries were included (43,198 beneficiaries with ADRD and 43,198 beneficiaries without ADRD). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
The commonly used criteria for diagnosis can differ by a factor of 10 in the number of subjects classified as having dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 20
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
56/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.
·
Ophthalmology
·
2025-09-16
Among the 393 497 All of Us participants with linked EHRs, we identified 9444 individuals (2.40%) with glaucoma diagnoses (excluding participants with diagnoses of dementia before glaucoma) and 37 776 matched controls without glaucoma. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 5,756
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Lecanemab was approved for early Alzheimer's disease in Japan, with ≈ 6000 patients treated in the first year post approval. 2 key findings →
Participants: 6,000
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
DeMonte Jr., MD, Joshua Chodosh, MD, MSHS, Xinping Cui, PhD, Stefanie Vassar, MS, Naihua Duan, PhD, and Martin Lee, PhDReduced Health Care Costs Associated With Disease Management for Chronic Heart Failure: A Study Using Three Methods to Examine the Financial Impact of a Heart Failure Disease Management Program Among Medicare Advantage EnrolleesEffects of Nurse Management on the Quality of Heart Failure Care in Minority Communities A Randomized TrialJane E. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
At least 45% of dementia and 60% of stroke cases are due to modifiable risk factors and could in part be prevented through healthy behavior. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Participants: 1,478
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
These findings support the view that chronic financial pressures associated with low income exert a weathering effect that results in premature aging. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
ReDeSign provides dementia training to convenience store workers and contributes to developing an inclusive community for people with dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 62
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
54/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.
·
JAMA Network Open
·
2025-03-06
Of 8976 decedents (mean [SD] age, 81.3 [8.6] years; 4927 women [55.1%] women) in the cohort, 2197 (22.5%) were included in the low wealth category, 4534 (50.5%) in the medium wealth category, and 2245 (27.1%) in the high wealth category. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
For detecting AD-dementia, the ensemble model achieved the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.943 (95% confidence interval, 0.906-0.980), 0.786 (95% confidence interval, 0.673-0.899), and 0.795 (95% confidence interval, 0.716-0.874) in the internal validation, External-1, and External-2, respectively. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study
Participants: 190
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
A total of 219 (32.9%) NHs and 2219 (75.5%) ALFs had an emergency power plan implemented by January 1, 2019. 4 key findings →
Participants: 680
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
53/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.
·
The Gerontologist
·
2018-11-01
Purpose of study To assess trends in family caregiving between 1999 and 2015. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
As ADRD deaths at home increase, the need for caregiver support and home-based palliative care may become more critical. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia in older adults. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
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.