Participants: 108 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
60/100
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
Reliability of the ACE-R was very good (alpha coefficient=0.8). 2 key findings →
Participants: 241 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
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
Hippocampal atrophy is not specific for AD but is also seen in semantic dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 26 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
FTD is a malignant disorder with limited life expectancy. 5 key findings →
Participants: 31 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We have previously reported a large Danish pedigree with autosomal dominant frontotemporal dementia (FTD) linked to chromosome 3 (FTD3). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
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
Over the past decade it has become evident that a substantial minority of patients with primary dementing diseases, particularly those presenting in the presenium, have dementia of frontal lobe type (DFT) due to non-Alzheimer's pathology. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 52 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
One of the major symptoms of semantic dementia (or progressive fluent aphasia) is profound word-finding difficulties. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
52/100
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
Change in eating behaviour was significantly more common in both of the frontotemporal dementia groups than in Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 23 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The development of novel treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD), aimed at ameliorating symptoms and modifying disease processes, increases the need for early diagnosis. 1 key finding →
Participants: 26 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
50/100
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
49/100
Progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA) is a syndrome in which patients lose the ability to communicate fluently in the context of relative preservation of single word comprehension and non-linguistic cognitive abilities. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We assessed remote memory in 33 patients with dementia of Alzheimer's type (DAT) with Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores between 17 and 30, and 30 matched controls using a Famous Faces Test and Famous Names Test designed to assess face recognition, identification and naming, and name recognition and identification, respectively, together with a range of anterograde episodic and semantic memory tests. 4 key findings →
Participants: 33 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
We studied executive function and autobiographical memory in a cohort of 33 DAT patients [divided into minimal (MMSE 24-30) and mild (MMSE 17-23) groups] and in 30 normal controls. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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