77/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.
·
PloS one
·
2016-06-03
111,485 articles were initially retrieved; 288 full articles were reviewed and 89.6% subsequently deemed ineligible due to exclusion of participants with co-existence of dementia and Parkinsonism. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial
Participants: 16
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
77/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.
·
GeroScience
·
2025-04-11
Sleep disorders, particularly insomnia and obstructive sleep apnea, are increasingly implicated as significant contributors to cognitive decline, dementia, and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
A relationship between sleep disorders and cognitive dysfunctions was reported in Parkinson's Disease (PD), however, some studies did not confirm the link. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 54
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
77/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.
·
BMC medicine
·
2025-02-25
The cohort study revealed that persistent HI significantly increased the risk of heart disease (P < 0.001, HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.31-2.03), stroke (P 0.004, HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.16-2.18), chronic lung disease (P 0.002, HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.17-1.99), and emotional, nervous, or psychiatric problems (P 0.016, HR 2.03, 95% CI 1.14-3.60). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 504,307
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Subjects experiencing multisensory impairments concurrent with visual impairment demonstrated a negative association with cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 500,000
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
77/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2026-05-01
Among 2 184 847 Danish citizens aged between 65 and 95 years, there were 3024 individuals with DLB (mean [SD] age, 78 [6], 1894 [62.6%] male) and 3808 with PDD (mean [SD] age, 78 [6], 2400 [63.0%] male) who were matched with 30 240 and 38 080 controls, respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study
Participants: 3,024
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
77/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100.
·
BMC medicine
·
2024-07-18
Increased absolute sugar intake (g/day) was significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause dementia (HR = 1.003, [95%CI: 1.002-1.004], p < 0.001) and Alzheimer's disease (1.002, [1.001-1.004], 0.005). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 210,832
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
The results show that the western diet pattern is a risk factor for developing AD. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 38
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is projected to become the highest-burden neurological disorder globally. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Of 65 participants with biomarker-confirmed AD, 21 (32.3%) were αS-SAA positive. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 108
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Thirty-six resident videos were shared with family (N = 50) and staff (N = 38) during care plan meetings. 5 key findings →
Participants: 50
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
This large review pooled 113 studies (nearly 30,000 people) comparing different forms of blood phosphorylated tau for detecting Alzheimer's pathology. p-tau217 was clearly the best-performing marker, correctly identifying disease pathology about 88% of the time, outperforming other tau variants like p-tau181. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 29,625
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
JAMA
·
2025-08-26
This randomized trial followed 2,111 older adults at risk for cognitive decline across 5 US sites for two years, comparing a highly structured lifestyle program (regular exercise, MIND diet, cognitive/social engagement, health coaching) against a lower-intensity, self-guided version of the same components. 4 key findings →
Design: RCT
Participants: 2,111
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
Neurology
·
2025-02-11
This long-term follow-up of the SPRINT randomized trial tested whether intensively lowering systolic blood pressure (to below 120, vs. the standard target of below 140) reduces the risk of thinking problems in adults 50+ with hypertension. 4 key findings →
Design: RCT
Participants: 9,361
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
Diabetes Care
·
2016-02
Pooling data on over 2.3 million people worldwide, this analysis confirmed that type 2 diabetes raises dementia risk by roughly 60% in both men and women, but the excess risk of vascular dementia specifically was notably higher in women than men. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 2,310,330
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
BMJ
·
2024-04-17
Antipsychotic use compared with non-use in adults with dementia was associated with increased risks of stroke, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, heart failure, fracture, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury, but not ventricular arrhythmia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 173,910
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Gradual up-titration of dose significantly reduced ARIA-E risk while demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics compared to standard dosing. 5 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial
Participants: 843
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Synthesis methods We meta-analysed results for each outcome within each comparison using the inverse variance method and the random-effects model. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 20,342
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
JAMA Neurology
·
2024-09-01
In BioFINDER-2, the mean (SD) age was 65.7 (14.4) with 261 females (52.7%). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort
Participants: 983
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 neurology
·
2019-07-01
The NfL level was increased at baseline in patients with mild cognitive impairment and AD dementia (mean levels: cognitive unimpairment, 32.1 ng/L; mild cognitive impairment, 37.9 ng/L; and AD dementia, 45.9 ng/L; P Conclusions and relevance The findings suggest that plasma NfL can be used as a noninvasive biomarker associated with neurodegeneration in patients with AD and may be useful to monitor effects in trials of disease-modifying drugs. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study
Participants: 1,583
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
·
2019-04-01
Among 16 008 registered participants, 11 409 (71.3%) completed study procedures and were included in the analysis (median age, 75 years [interquartile range, 71-80]; 50.9% women; 60.5% with MCI). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study
Participants: 16
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 neurology
·
2025-12-01
Reduction of amyloid via amyloid-targeting therapies may result in clinical benefit. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial
Participants: 1,582
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
Nature genetics
·
2007-01-01
The past decade has witnessed hundreds of reports declaring or refuting genetic association with putative Alzheimer disease susceptibility genes. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Full text may need a subscription
76/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2022-10-01
The primary study randomized 272 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.2 [5.5] years; 145 female participants [53.3%]). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial
Participants: 272
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
Ann Neurol 2018;84:737-748. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 443
Evidence: high
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.