ReviewAlzheimer's research & therapy2026
Facial phenotypes in Alzheimer's disease: from neurobiology to artificial intelligence.
Review in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Facial analysis is increasingly being explored as a source of scalable behavioral signals relevant to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related cognitive impairment. In this narrative review, informed by a structured literature search, we summarize current evidence on the biological and behavioral basis of facial alterations in AD, with particular emphasis on affective expressivity, neuropsychiatric manifestations, and dynamic facial behavior. We also review representative artificial intelligence-based facial analysis methods, including commonly used datasets, feature representations, and modeling strategies, ranging from facial landmarks and texture descriptors to spatiotemporal video models, multimodal fusion, and language-enhanced frameworks. Current evidence remains limited by small and largely single-center cohorts, heterogeneity in acquisition settings and outcome definitions, inadequate control of confounding factors, limited external validation, poor calibration reporting, and persistent concerns regarding interpretability and clinical specificity. Within the evolving biomarker-based diagnostic framework of AD, facial analysis is better viewed as a candidate, non-specific, and context-dependent tool for auxiliary risk stratification, triage support, and longitudinal monitoring rather than as stand-alone diagnostic tests. Future progress will depend on standardized data acquisition, integration with clinical and biomarker data, improved explainability, and prospective real-world validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.