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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 29 studies with an author at MRC Prion Unit (GB) (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

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

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 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.

Genetic meta-analysis of diagnosed Alzheimer's disease identifies new risk loci and implicates Aβ, tau, immunity and lipid processing

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 85 out of 100. Nature genetics 2019-02-28

Risk for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), the most prevalent dementia, is partially driven by genetics. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 94,437 Evidence: high

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

Frontotemporal dementia and its subtypes: a genome-wide association study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2014-07-01

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a complex disorder characterised by a broad range of clinical manifestations, differential pathological signatures, and genetic variability. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,526 Evidence: high

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

Deciphering distinct genetic risk factors for FTLD-TDP pathological subtypes via whole-genome sequencing

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Nature Communications 2025-04-25

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration with neuronal inclusions of the TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (FTLD-TDP) is a fatal neurodegenerative disorder with only a limited number of risk loci identified. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 985 Evidence: high

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

Frequency of the C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansion in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia: a cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2012-03-09

In patients with sporadic ALS, we identified the repeat expansion in 236 (7·0%) of 3377 white individuals from the USA, Europe, and Australia, two (4·1%) of 49 black individuals from the USA, and six (8·3%) of 72 Hispanic individuals from the USA. 1 key finding →

Participants: 4,448 Evidence: low

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

Uncovering the heterogeneity and temporal complexity of neurodegenerative diseases with Subtype and Stage Inference

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Nature communications 2018-10-15

The heterogeneity of neurodegenerative diseases is a key confound to disease understanding and treatment development, as study cohorts typically include multiple phenotypes on distinct disease trajectories. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Presymptomatic cognitive and neuroanatomical changes in genetic frontotemporal dementia in the Genetic Frontotemporal dementia Initiative (GENFI) study: a cross-sectional analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2015-02-04

For neuropsychology measures, we noted the earliest significant differences between mutation carriers and non-carriers 5 years before expected onset, when differences were significant for all measures except for tests of immediate recall and verbal fluency. 2 key findings →

Participants: 220 Evidence: low

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

Prevalence, characteristics, and survival of frontotemporal lobar degeneration syndromes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2016-04-01

Key features of this study include the revised diagnostic criteria with improved specificity and sensitivity, an unrestricted age range, and simultaneous assessment of multiple FTLD syndromes. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Frontotemporal dementia with the C9ORF72 hexanucleotide repeat expansion: clinical, neuroanatomical and neuropathological features

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2012-03-01

The neuroimaging profile of the C9ORF72 expansion was significantly more symmetrical than progranulin mutations with significantly less temporal lobe involvement than microtubule-associated protein tau mutations. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Clinical and neuroanatomical signatures of tissue pathology in frontotemporal lobar degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2011-09-01

Relating clinical symptoms to neuroanatomical profiles of brain damage and ultimately to tissue pathology is a key challenge in the field of neurodegenerative disease and particularly relevant to the heterogeneous disorders that comprise the frontotemporal lobar degeneration spectrum. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

R47H TREM2 variant increases risk of typical early-onset Alzheimer's disease but not of prion or frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2014-08-23

We confirm only p.R47H as a risk factor for AD (odds ratio or OR = 2.19; 95% confidence interval or CI = 1.04-4.51; P = .03). p.R47H does not significantly alter risk for frontotemporal dementia (OR = 0.81), variant or sporadic CJD (OR = 1.06 95%CI = 0.66-1.69) in our cohorts. 4 key findings →

Participants: 700 Evidence: low

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

Functional multivesicular bodies are required for autophagic clearance of protein aggregates associated with neurodegenerative disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. The Journal of cell biology 2007-11-01

The endosomal sorting complexes required for transport (ESCRTs) are required to sort integral membrane proteins into intralumenal vesicles of the multivesicular body (MVB). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

FUS pathology defines the majority of tau- and TDP-43-negative frontotemporal lobar degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2010-05-20

Through an international consortium, we have collected 37 tau- and TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43)-negative frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) cases, and present here the first comprehensive analysis of these cases in terms of neuropathology, genetics, demographics and clinical data. 92% (34/37) had fused in sarcoma (FUS) protein pathology, indicating that FTLD-FUS is an important FTLD subtype. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

High-Level Alzheimer Disease Neuropathological Change Following Iatrogenic Exposure

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2026-03-30

The study describes 4 males who developed dementia following confirmed or suspected c-hGH treatment in childhood (age at symptom onset between 47 and 60 years) with cognitive syndromes characterized by prominent language involvement. 4 key findings →

Participants: 14 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 27,380 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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed