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 101–125 of 610 studies · free to read (page 5 of 25) · 29,780 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.

Recent studies suggest the existence of brain-first and body-first subtypes within the Lewy body disorder (LBD) spectrum, including Parkinson's disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 173 Evidence: low

The LBD-present group had higher QSM values in the SNc (P = 0.008) than the LBD-absent group with no differences in SNr. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 13 Evidence: moderate

Of 305 patients, follow-up information was available for 279, of whom 93 (33.3%) developed defined neurodegenerative disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 305 Evidence: low

We aimed to determine the regional pattern of brain atrophy associated with the C9ORF72 gene mutation, and to determine which regions best differentiate C9ORF72 from subjects with mutations in tau and progranulin, and from sporadic frontotemporal dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 76 Evidence: low

Incomplete penetrance was suggested in two kindreds, and the youngest generation had significantly earlier age of onset (>10 years) compared with the next oldest generation in 11 kindreds. 2 key findings →

Participants: 63 Evidence: low

Blood-brain barrier opening with focused ultrasound in Parkinson's disease dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Nature communications 2021-02-03

MR-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS), in combination with intravenous microbubble administration, has been applied for focal temporary BBB opening in patients with neurodegenerative disorders and brain tumors. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

There was, as expected, a significant association between C9ORF72 mutations and presence of motor neuron disease. 5 key findings →

Participants: 398 Evidence: moderate

Mutations in the progranulin gene (GRN) are an important cause of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) with ubiquitin and TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP43)-positive pathology. 3 key findings →

Participants: 219 Evidence: low

Several clinical trials are planned for familial forms of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (f-FTLD). 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

Molecular genetic studies of familial cases of FTLD-U have shown that mutations in the progranulin (PGRN) gene are a major genetic cause of FTLD-U. Thus, familial TDP-43 proteinopathy is associated with defects in multiple genes, and molecular genetics is required in these cases to correctly identify the causative gene defect. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Longitudinal analysis revealed progressive and widespread changes in the grey matter, notably including the basal ganglia. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate

The two current major staging systems in use for Lewy body disorders fail to classify up to 50% of subjects. 3 key findings →

Participants: 417 Evidence: low

The innate immune system is implicated in Parkinson's disease (PD), but peripheral in-vivo clinical evidence of the components and driving mechanisms involved and their relationship with clinical heterogeneity and progression to dementia remain poorly explored. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 41 Evidence: moderate

We identified individuals with an incident diagnosis of PD (n=1276) and controls (n=500 406) in UK Biobank. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,276 Evidence: moderate

Early onset hallucinations were significantly more common in pLBD than pAD (OR 0.069 [95% CI 0.012-0.397], p = 0.003) or mixed AD+LBD (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.010-0.771], p = 0.028) and there was a greater increase in the odds of hallucinations over time in pAD and AD+LBD than pLBD such that there was was no difference in the prevalence of late-onset hallucinations between pLBD, pAD or AD+LBD. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 37 Evidence: moderate

Clinical diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy: The movement disorder society criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Movement Disorders 2017-05-03

Here, we present new criteria aimed to optimize early, sensitive, and specific clinical diagnosis of PSP on the basis of currently available evidence. © 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

↑ 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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 (3.5% 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