From molecular mechanisms to global brain networks, atypical fluctuations are the hallmark of neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
Participants: 300 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.
Accurate early diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases represents a growing challenge for current clinical practice. 5 key findings →
Participants: 200 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The semantic and non-fluent/agrammatic variants are largely associated with frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP-43 and tau pathology, respectively. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Accurate processing of emotional information is a critical component of appropriate social interactions and interpersonal relationships. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
48/100
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
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
Brain 18F-FDG PET scans interpreted with Neurostat and 3D-SSP displays accurately detected Alzheimer disease in patients with primary progressive aphasia or corticobasal syndrome as focal-onset dementias. 2 key findings →
Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Current definitions for the preclinical phase of dementia focus predominantly on cognitive measures, with particular emphasis on memory and the prediction of Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) has been associated with toxic intracellular aggregates of hyperphosphorylated tau (FTLD-tau). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with frontotemporal dementia have pervasive changes in emotion recognition and social cognition, yet the neural changes underlying these emotion processing deficits remain unclear. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There was clear evidence of generalization especially in patients with milder semantic impairments. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
(18)F-THK523 does not bind to Aβ in vivo, while following the known distribution of paired helical filaments (PHF)-tau in the brain. 4 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 →