66/100
Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is the second most common cause of presenile dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 515 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is classically defined as a dual clinicopathological entity. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Using exome sequencing, we identified a p.R191Q amino acid change in the valosin-containing protein (VCP) gene in an Italian family with autosomal dominantly inherited amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 1 key finding →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Structural imaging based on magnetic resonance is an integral part of the clinical assessment of patients with suspected Alzheimer dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Late Onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) is the leading cause of dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Machine learning and pattern recognition methods have been used to diagnose Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from individual MRI scans. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is the second most common young-onset dementia and is clinically characterised by progressive behavioural change, executive dysfunction and language difficulties. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
53/100
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
A diagnosis of dementia is devastating at any age but diagnosis in younger patients presents a particular challenge. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neurodegenerative tauopathies, of which progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) is one of the most common, are clinically heterogeneous, reflecting differences in distribution and biochemical composition of tau pathology. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
51/100
To investigate the relationships between age, the advanced clinical stages of Parkinson's disease and neuropathology, we surveyed 129 case records from donors with pathologically proven Parkinson's disease at the Queen Square Brain Bank for Neurological Disorders. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Autosomal-dominant Alzheimer's disease has provided significant understanding of the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
48/100
Forty of 105 (38%) were classified as NC-low, and 65 (62%) as NC-high. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a neurodegenerative disorder with language impairment as the primary feature. 4 key findings →
Participants: 14 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →