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
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
α-Synuclein is the major component of filamentous inclusions that constitute the defining characteristic of neurodegenerative α-synucleinopathies. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We have investigated the extent and pattern of immunostaining for the TAR DNA-binding protein, TDP-43, in 37 patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin (UBQ) pathology (FTLD-U). 4 key findings →
Participants: 37 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
To analyze the relationship between the deposition of amyloid beta peptides (Abeta) and neuronal loss in transgenic models of Alzheimer's disease (AD), we examined the frontal neocortex (Fc) and CA1 portion of hippocampus (CA1) in PSAPP mice doubly expressing AD-associated mutant presenilin 1 (PS1) and Swedish-type mutant beta amyloid precursor protein (APPsw) by morphometry of Abeta burden and neuronal counts. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is associated with apolipoprotein E (APOE gene, apoE protein) polymorphism: current evidence suggests that the epsilon4 allele is a risk factor for the development of CAA and the epsilon2 allele predisposes to hemorrhage. 3 key findings →
Participants: 62 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Sixteen patients with progressive language disorder have been studied longitudinally. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The neuropathology of Down syndrome (DS) at middle age is compared with that of Alzheimer disease (AD) at that age, through a review of the published literature and from the author's personal observations on brains from a series of patients of different ages with DS. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The form and distribution of senile plaques (SP) and neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) has been examined in the brains of 13 patients with Down's syndrome (DS), aged less than or equal to 50 years, using immunocytochemical and silver staining procedures. 5 key findings →
Participants: 13 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings indicate that immunostaining with these antibodies is essential for the evaluation of frontal dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
40/100
To gain insights into the different forms of modified amyloid beta peptides (A beta) in the Alzheimer disease (AD) and Down syndrome (DS) brain, we used two-site ELISAs with antibodies specific for isomerized (i.e. A beta with L-isoaspartate at positions 1 and 7) and pyroglutamate-modified (i.e. A beta beginning with pyroglutamate at position 3) forms of A beta to quantitate the levels of these different A beta peptides in formic acid extracts of AD and DS frontal cortex. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Computer visualization techniques were used to map and to quantitatively reconstruct the entire locus coeruleus, including the nucleus subcoeruleus, to compare the topographic patterns of cell loss in postmortem brains from patients with Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and Down syndrome. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid beta protein (Abeta) deposition was investigated in the frontal cortex of 8 cases of (genetically confirmed) chromosome 14-linked Alzheimer's disease (AD) using the end-specific monoclonal antibodies BA27 and BC05 to detect the presence of Abeta40 and Abeta42(43), respectively. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Frameshift (+1) proteins such as APP(+1) and UBB(+1) accumulate in sporadic cases of Alzheimer disease (AD) and in older subjects with Down syndrome (DS). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Collagenous Alzheimer amyloid plaque component (CLAC) is a unique non-Abeta amyloid component of senile plaques (SP) derived from a transmembrane collagen termed CLAC-precursor. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A quantitative morphometric analysis was used to estimate neurone and synapse densities in cerebral cortical biopsy tissues from patients with dementia under 65 years of age and pathologically verified as suffering from Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →