Home › Research › Prevention and risk
Comparator supplement patterns qualify the clinical interpretation of an EHR-derived glucosamine signal in Alzheimer’s disease
Nakashima S, Sato K, Niimi Y, Satake W, Iwatsubo T.. medRxiv, 2026-07-27
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Electronic health records linked documented glucosamine use to faster progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and poorer survival after dementia. We examined these associations in the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center cohort and compared glucosamine with other supplement records captured in the same medication fields. The estimate for progression to primary AD dementia was in the same risk direction as the original finding, but similar estimates were observed for multivitamin/broad vitamin and calcium/vitamin D records. Among participants with dementia, glucosamine records were not associated with higher adjusted mortality, although death-data limitations reduce certainty. These findings do not address the experimental mechanism, but show that a glucosamine record alone does not establish a glucosamine-specific clinical effect.
Key findings
- Among participants with dementia, glucosamine records were not associated with higher adjusted mortality, although death-data limitations reduce certainty.
- These findings do not address the experimental mechanism, but show that a glucosamine record alone does not establish a glucosamine-specific clinical effect.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 24 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 15 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 24 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 15 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 15 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 24 out of 100. |
| Total | 24 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Nakashima, S., Sato, K., Niimi, Y., Satake, W., & Iwatsubo, T. (2026). Comparator supplement patterns qualify the clinical interpretation of an EHR-derived glucosamine signal in Alzheimer’s disease. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.07.23.26358748
Vancouver
Nakashima S, Sato K, Niimi Y, Satake W, Iwatsubo T. Comparator supplement patterns qualify the clinical interpretation of an EHR-derived glucosamine signal in Alzheimer’s disease. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.07.23.26358748.
BibTeX
@article{nakashima2026-086b7a5e,
author = {Nakashima, S. and Sato, K. and Niimi, Y. and Satake, W. and Iwatsubo, T.},
title = {{Comparator supplement patterns qualify the clinical interpretation of an EHR-derived glucosamine signal in Alzheimer’s disease}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.07.23.26358748},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.07.23.26358748}
}
Related studies in Prevention and risk
Also tagged “metabolic-syndrome”
304 studies in the library carry the topic tag “metabolic-syndrome”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 304 tagged studies.