alzhub.org
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.

Research

27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–21 of 21 studies by Hodges JR with an author at MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 21 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.

Subjects

Other authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,259 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

A brief cognitive test battery to differentiate Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2000-12-01

The ACE is a brief and reliable bedside instrument for early detection of dementia, and offers a simple objective index to differentiate AD and FTD in mildly demented patients. 2 key findings →

Participants: 115 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Focal cortical presentations of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2007-10-01

To determine the frequency of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology in patients presenting with progressive focal cortical syndromes, notably posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), corticobasal syndrome (CBS), behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA) (or a mixed aphasia) and semantic dementia (SD); and to compare the age of onset, evolution and prognosis in patients with focal cortical presentations of AD versus more typical AD and those with non AD pathology. 1 key finding →

Participants: 200 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

A voxel-based morphometry study of semantic dementia: relationship between temporal lobe atrophy and semantic memory

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2000-01-01

The cortical anatomy of 6 patients with semantic dementia (the temporal lobe variant of frontotemporal dementia) was contrasted with that of a group of age-matched normal subjects by using voxel-based morphometry, a technique that identifies changes in gray matter volume on a voxel-by-voxel basis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Homogeneity and heterogeneity in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study of 55 cases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2003-07-22

This study investigated cross-sectional and longitudinal neuropsychological data from 55 patients: 38 with Alzheimer's disease and 18 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 55 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Which neuropsychiatric and behavioural features distinguish frontal and temporal variants of frontotemporal dementia from Alzheimer's disease?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2000-08-01

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

Differentiating frontal and temporal variant frontotemporal dementia from Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2000-06-01

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

The rise and fall of frequency and imageability: noun and verb production in semantic dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Brain and language 2000-06-01

This study examines the impact of progressive degeneration of conceptual knowledge on the content words used in connected speech elicited using the Cookie Theft picture description (Goodglass & Kaplan. 1983). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Executive function in progressive and nonprogressive behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2008-11-01

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

Phonological and articulatory impairment in Alzheimer's disease: a case series

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Brain and language 2000-11-01

We demonstrate that phonological and articulatory impairments may occur at presentation or early in the course of Alzheimer's disease, contrary to claims that these aspects of language production are relatively preserved until the final stages of this disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Perception, attention, and working memory are disproportionately impaired in dementia with Lewy bodies compared with Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2001-02-01

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

↑ 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
  • 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 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.

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 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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed