27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Patients who failed to meet revised criteria were significantly older and most had atypical presentations with marked memory impairment. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The term frontotemporal dementia (FTD) encompasses a range of clinical syndromes that are believed not to map reliably onto the spectrum of recognized pathologies. 2 key findings →
Participants: 61 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is the umbrella term encompassing a heterogeneous group of pathological disorders. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early reports of cognitive and behavioural deficits in motor neuron disease might have been overlooked initially, but the concept of a frontotemporal dementia-motor neuron disease continuum has emerged during the past decade. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Factor analysis showed four robust and meaningful symptom clusters: factor 1-stereotypic and eating behaviour; factor 2-executive dysfunction and self care; factor 3-mood changes; factor 4-loss of social awareness. 4 key findings →
Participants: 33 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patients with left and right predominant SD present with distinct behavioral-cognitive profiles. 3 key findings →
Participants: 36 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A key aspect of social cognition is the ability to infer other people's mental states, thoughts and feelings; referred to as 'theory of mind' (ToM). 2 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The double dissociation in performance on semantic memory and attention/executive function clearly separated the temporal and frontal variants of FTD and aids the early differentiation of FTD from AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Disinhibition is a common behavioural symptom in frontotemporal dementia but its neural correlates are still debated. 3 key findings →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This multimodal approach enhanced the system's performance and provided a clinically informative method for neuroimaging analysis. 1 key finding →
Participants: 44 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patients with behavioural-variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) present with insidious changes in personality and interpersonal conduct that indicate progressive disintegration of the neural circuits involved in social cognition, emotion regulation, motivation, and decision making. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) refers to a group of progressive neurodegenerative disorders with different pathological signatures, genetic variability and complex disease mechanisms, for which no effective treatments exist. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Contrary to some prior reports, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bv-FTD) patients who progress over time are typically impaired on executive tasks at first presentation, although an important minority of true FTD patients perform normally. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study provides pathological validation that the new criteria assist with separating PPA cases with AD pathology into the new lv-PPA syndrome and found that a number of diagnostic clinical features (disinhibition, food preferences and naming) did not assist in discriminating the different FTD syndromes. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Differentiation of logopenic (lvPPA) and nonfluent/agrammatic (nfvPPA) variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia is important yet remains challenging since it hinges on expert based evaluation of speech and language production. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Both patient groups performed equally poorly on tests of episodic and semantic memory with the exception of immediate and delayed story recall, which was worse in the AD group. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Progressive and non-progressive patients are difficult to differentiate on the basis of current clinical diagnostic criteria for FTD but a combination of general cognitive, executive dysfunction and impaired ADL measures appear to be the most promising discriminators. 2 key findings →
Participants: 71 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In bvFTD, they are in part related to hypothalamic degeneration, with potential disintegration of the network connections between the hypothalamus and orbitofrontal cortex/reward pathways. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
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.
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 27,780 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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 →