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 576–600 of 610 studies · free to read (page 24 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.

Quantitative electroencephalography in the diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Clinical Neurophysiology Practice 2025-01-01

The spectral analysis of the resting-state eyes-closed electroencephalographic (rsEEG) activity typically shows abnormal delta (< 4 Hz), theta (4-7 Hz), and alpha (8-12 Hz) power in older patients with cognitive deficits due to progressive neurodegenerative diseases. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In plasma, most complement analytes were not significantly different between spFTD and HC; the exceptions were C4 and FB, significantly decreased in spFTD vs HC ( p = 0.0192 and p = 0.0181, respectively), suggesting complement consumption in classical and alternative pathways. 3 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Proteinopathies such as Alzheimer, Parkinson, and Huntington diseases, where aberrant proteins spread throughout the brain during disease progression, may share a molecular basis and mechanisms of propagation. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dementia is a common feature in Parkinson's disease (PD) and is considered to be the result of limbic and cortical Lewy bodies and/or Alzheimer changes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and dementia frequently co-occur, yet the biological mechanisms underlying this comorbidity remain incompletely understood. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

EEG microstate alterations in Parkinson’s disease dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Scientific Reports 2026-02-27

To investigate alterations in resting-state electroencephalogram (EEG) microstates across the cognitive spectrum of Parkinson's disease (PD) and to evaluate their utility as electrophysiological biomarkers of cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

26% of the participants experienced delirium prior to diagnosis of DLB, with one participant experiencing multiple episodes in the 24 months before diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The enzyme pair PINK1 and PRKN together orchestrates a cytoprotective mitophagy pathway that selectively tags damaged mitochondria with phospho-serine 65 ubiquitin (pS65-Ub) and directs them for autophagic-lysosomal degradation (mitophagy). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Clinical and population-based epidemiological studies report variation in the observed prevalence and incidence of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) represents a heterogeneous group of neurodegenerative disorders with overlapping clinical, pathological, and genetic characteristics. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

DLB is characterized by DMN and visual network dysfunction, disrupted local neural activity, and impaired global network integration. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Von Economo neurons (VENs) are unique spindle-shaped neurons that primarily reside in the anterior cingulate (ACC) and fronto-insular (FI) cortices. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Prion diseases are fatal neurological disorders characterized by the accumulation of abnormal proteins in the central nervous system, leading to rapid neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Our case series highlighted the relevance of neurological comorbidities in BP patients; although the pathogenesis is still to be elucidated, the neuroinflammation present in neurodegenerative diseases could explain the neurocutaneous link and the chronological relationship between these entities. 3 key findings →

Participants: 257 Evidence: low

Neurodegenerative disorders (NDDs), primarily alzheimer, dementia, parkinson, and rare NDD disease, present an escalating global health crisis, currently affecting over 55 million older adults worldwide. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The behavioural and mental health needs of people with PWS result from the interactions between biological vulnerabilities associated with having PWS and living in a changing and demanding environment. 4 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