Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 121 studies in Brain tissue and pathology · tagged Other Dementias (page 1 of 5) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 121 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Brain tissue and pathology” covers

Brain tissue and pathology — What is found in the brain itself, usually after death: plaques, tangles and other changes, and how they match symptoms in life.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

PD dementia (PDD) is associated with α-synuclein propagation, but coexistent Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology may coexist. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

TDP-43-associated atrophy in brains with and without frontotemporal lobar degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. NeuroImage. Clinical 2022-02-04

Transactive response DNA-binding protein of ∼43 kDa (TDP-43), a primary pathologic substrate in tau-negative frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), is also often found in the brains of elderly individuals without FTLD and is a key player in the process of neurodegeneration in brains with and without FTLD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a common, fatal motor neuron disorder with no effective treatment. 4 key findings →

Participants: 111 Evidence: low

Biomarkers to determine underlying frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) tau or TAR DNA-binding protein (TDP) pathology during life are needed to advance clinical trials targeting specific FTD pathologies. 3 key findings →

Participants: 513 Evidence: moderate

Intronic expansion of the GGGGCC hexanucleotide repeat within the C9ORF72 gene causes frontotemporal dementia and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease in both familial and sporadic cases. 4 key findings →

Participants: 361 Evidence: moderate

Relating clinical symptoms to neuroanatomical profiles of brain damage and ultimately to tissue pathology is a key challenge in the field of neurodegenerative disease and particularly relevant to the heterogeneous disorders that comprise the frontotemporal lobar degeneration spectrum. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

No treatment for frontotemporal dementia (FTD), the second most common type of early-onset dementia, is available, but therapeutics are being investigated to target the 2 main proteins associated with FTD pathological subtypes: TDP-43 (FTLD-TDP) and tau (FTLD-tau). 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Staging of brain pathology related to sporadic Parkinson’s disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurobiology of Aging 2002-12-28

This study traces the course of pathology in incidental and symptomatic Parkinson cases and proposes a staging procedure based upon the readily recognizable topographical extent of the lesions. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Elaborating on the results, we validated one finding using a quantitative assessment of TDP-43 pathology in the granular layer of the hippocampus in FTLD-TDP brain donors with (n = 15) and without (n = 15) hallucinations. 3 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: moderate

Plasma phospho-tau217 correlated with plasma phospho-tau181, CSF phospho-tau217 (rs = 0.68, P < 0.001), and negatively with CSF β-amyloid42/40 (rs = -0.52, P = 0.001). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 35 Evidence: low

LATE-NC Stage 3: a diagnostic rubric to differentiate severe LATE-NC from FTLD-TDP

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2025-04-28

A diagnostic rubric is required to distinguish between limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy neuropathologic change (LATE-NC) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP-43 inclusions (FTLD-TDP). 3 key findings →

Participants: 514 Evidence: low

We have investigated the extent and pattern of immunostaining for the TAR DNA-binding protein, TDP-43, in 37 patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin (UBQ) pathology (FTLD-U). 4 key findings →

Participants: 37 Evidence: low

TARDBP mutations in motoneuron disease with frontotemporal lobar degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2009-04-01

TDP-43 (TAR-DNA binding protein) aggregates in neuronal inclusions in motoneuron disease (MND), as well as in frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and FTLD associated with MND (FTLD-MND). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive Impairment, Dementia and Depression in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2026-02-03

This narrative review integrates longitudinal cohort studies, neuroimaging and biomarker research, and major clinical trials to examine how depression and cognitive decline interact across the dementia continuum. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Morphologically, reactive and amoeboid microglia were common in mixed DLB + AD, while homeostatic microglia with a small soma and thin processes were observed in pure DLB cases. 5 key findings →

Participants: 35 Evidence: moderate

Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy (LATE) is characterized by the accumulation of TAR-DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) aggregates in older adults. 4 key findings →

Participants: 313 Evidence: low

No asymptomatic participant and only 11% (3/27) of the symptomatic patients tested SAA positive. 5 key findings →

Participants: 26 Evidence: low

The seeds of neurodegeneration: prion-like spreading in ALS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Cell 2011-10-01

Misfolded proteins accumulating in several neurodegenerative diseases (including Alzheimer, Parkinson, and Huntington diseases) can cause aggregation of their native counterparts through a mechanism similar to the infectious prion protein's induction of a pathogenic conformation onto its cellular isoform. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Parkinson disease neuropathology: later-developing dementia and loss of the levodopa response

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2002-01-01

We identified 13 patients with a clinical diagnosis of PD who experienced dementia at least 4 years after parkinsonism onset (mean, 10.5 years) and subsequently underwent postmortem examination. 4 key findings →

Participants: 13 Evidence: low

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read

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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,380 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.

What this library is — and isn't

This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed    Where this research is being discussed: events