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 276–300 of 610 studies · free to read (page 12 of 25) · 30,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 610 studies tagged frontotemporal — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

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.

Prospective studies have shown that although the beneficial effects of this procedure are maintained at 5 years, axial motor features and cognitive decline may occur in the long term after the implants. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Language Profile of Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2016-01-01

Relative to healthy controls, and after accounting for nonverbal executive performance, patients with bvFTD showed deficits of noun and verb naming and single word comprehension, diminished spontaneous propositional speech, and deterioration in naming performance over time. 3 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: moderate

Profiling Speech and Pausing in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. PloS one 2016-01-20

This study demonstrated the use of speech measures in the identification of those with an oral-motor deficit, and showed the usefulness of performing a relatively simple reading test to assess speech versus pause behaviors across the ALS-FTD disease continuum. 3 key findings →

Participants: 136 Evidence: low

This multimodal approach enhanced the system's performance and provided a clinically informative method for neuroimaging analysis. 1 key finding →

Participants: 44 Evidence: low

C9orf72-mediated ALS and FTD: multiple pathways to disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2018-09-01

The discovery that repeat expansions in the C9orf72 gene are a frequent cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) has revolutionized our understanding of these diseases. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

FDG-PET was performed on a cohort of 79 patients with newly diagnosed PD (mean disease duration 8 months) and 20 unrelated controls. 4 key findings →

Participants: 79 Evidence: moderate

To identify rare causal variants in late-onset Parkinson disease (PD), we investigated an Austrian family with 16 affected individuals by exome sequencing. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: defining phenotypic diversity through personalized medicine

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2014-12-31

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) comprises two main classes of neurodegenerative diseases characterized by neuronal/glial proteinaceous inclusions (i.e., proteinopathies) including tauopathies (i.e., FTLD-Tau) and TDP-43 proteinopathies (i.e., FTLD-TDP) while other very rare forms of FTLD are known such as FTLD with FUS pathology (FTLD-FUS). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Inflammation in ALS/FTD pathogenesis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2018-11-21

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are neurodegenerative diseases that overlap in their clinical presentation, pathology and genetics, and likely represent a spectrum of one underlying disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cutaneous Phosphorylated Alpha‐Synuclein in Lewy Body Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology 2025-12-25

After expert panel review, only 50/67 patients met consensus criteria for DLB, 26/151 controls had a reduced MoCA, and 120/151 controls had a normal MoCA. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 151 Evidence: low

Parkinson disease (PD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and multiple system atrophy are synucleinopathies, characterized by neuronal loss, gliosis and the abnormal deposition of α-synuclein in vulnerable areas of the nervous system. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Sex differences in clinical phenotypes of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-04-01

Females with sporadic bvFTD showed worse compulsive behavior (p = 0.026) and language impairments (p = 0.024) compared to females with genetic bvFTD (n = 152). 5 key findings →

Participants: 152 Evidence: low

Subjects with PD-SCD do not consistently show cognitive decline, but rather exhibit a heterogeneous progression. 4 key findings →

Participants: 198 Evidence: moderate

Systematic review of differentially abundant proteins in people with Lewy body dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Acta neuropsychiatrica 2025-03-27

Our meta-analyses confirmed significantly lower CSF TAU levels in DLB and CSF SYUA levels in PDD, when compared to Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The most common and distinctive feature for all pathologies associated with primary progressive aphasia was the asymmetric prominence of atrophy, neuronal loss, and disease-specific proteinopathy in the language-dominant (mostly left) hemisphere. 2 key findings →

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.

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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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