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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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
29,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 276–300 of 1,308 studies · free to read · tagged Brain Scans(page 12 of 53)· 29,780 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)
From OpenAlex; 15,255 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-08-08
ARIA-E can also occur spontaneously in cerebral amyloid angiopathy-related inflammation (CAA-ri), a rare autoimmune encephalopathy associated with increased CSF levels of anti-Aβ autoantibodies. 5 key findings →
We found no statistically significant difference in measures of WM injury by race and ethnicity after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors and socioeconomic status. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2013-08-01
The NIA-AA criteria apply to most MCI subjects in both the community and clinical trials settings; however, a sizeable proportion of subjects had conflicting biomarkers, which may be very important and need to be explored. 2 key findings →
Hippocampal atrophy, posterior cingulate and frontal glucose hypometabolism, and white-matter tract disruption are well described early macroscopic events in Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2009-01-21
In mostly small single-center studies, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with characteristic and progressive reductions in fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) measurements of the regional cerebral metabolic rate for glucose (CMRgl). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2012-10-01
Using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) population, we examined (1) cross-sectional relationships between amyloid deposition, hypometabolism, and cognition, and (2) associations between amyloid and hypometabolism measurements and longitudinal cognitive measurements. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA Surgery·2025-03-05
Among 1136 patients in the intention-to-treat population, 526 (46.3%) were female and 610 (53.7%) male; they had a mean (SD) age of 70 (11) years, body mass index of 28 (5), and age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index of 5 (3). 5 key findings →
In multi-adjusted models, higher adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet was associated with higher total mean cortical thickness, and thicker cortex in Alzheimer's disease-signature regions, while a higher adherence to the MeDi was associated with better cognitive performance. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·NeuroImage Clinical·2025-01-01
56 individuals (mean (sd) age: 68.8 (4.2) years, 26 females, 24/32 intervention/control group) were included at baseline and 41 returned after an average of 28 months for the second assessment. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Brain·2008-02-07
Interestingly, we found no consistent differences in learning and memory performance between high versus low PiB cognitively normal or amnestic MCI subjects. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Stroke·2021-02-01
Plasma NfL level is a valuable noninvasive biomarker that supplements magnetic resonance imaging scans and possibly reflects the severity of CSVD burden. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Neurology·2018-03-16
Arterial stiffness, measured by PWV, is an emerging risk factor for dementia through its repeated relationships with cognition, cSVD, and Aβ deposition. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2002-09-01
A new diagnostic indicator of FDG PET scan abnormality, based on age-adjusted t statistics and an automated voxel-based procedure, is presented and validated in a large data set comprising 110 normal controls and 395 patients with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) that were studied in eight participating centers. 5 key findings →
Standardized automated analysis of (18)F-FDG PET scans may provide an objective and sensitive support to the clinical diagnosis in early dementia. 1 key finding →
Progressive CMRglc reductions on FDG-PET occur years in advance of clinical DAT symptoms in patients with pathologically verified disease. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Neurology·2004-02-01
These data support the use of rates of change from serial MRI studies in addition to standard clinical/psychometric measures as surrogate markers of disease progression in AD. 1 key finding →
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.
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%),
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 (3.5% 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.