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
30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 326–350 of 1,308 studies · free to read · tagged Brain Scans(page 14 of 53)· 30,180 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; 15,654 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.
Accounting for educationalfactors, vascular factors, and Aβ burden diminished, but did not eliminate, racial differences in PACC5 performance longitudinally. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-05-26
The proposed novel, pragmatic method to determine CSF biomarker cutoffs for AD does not require assessment of other biomarkers or assumptions concerning the clinical diagnosis of patients. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2013-03-01
Although there were no significant differences among the 3 groups of participants in their clinical ratings, neuropsychological test scores, hippocampal volumes (P = .60), or hippocampal glucose metabolism measurements (P = .12), there were significant group differences in their posterior cingulate glucose metabolism measurements (P = .001). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurology and therapy·2021-08-16
These results indicate that trans-resveratrol has potential neuroprotective roles in the treatment of moderate to mild AD and that its mechanism may involve a reduction in the accumulation and toxicity of Aβ in the brain of patients, thereby reducing neuroinflammation. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurology·2002-03-01
Individuals with an isolated pathologic diagnosis of AD, hippocampal sclerosis, frontotemporal degeneration, and neurofibrillary tangle--only degeneration usually had substantial hippocampal atrophy, while those with changes of typical aging did not. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·JAMA·2009-12-01
Circulating leptin was associated with a reduced incidence of dementia and AD and with cerebral brain volume in asymptomatic older adults. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2022-10-26
ALPS-index may provide useful disease progression or treatment biomarkers for patients with AD as an indicator of modulation of glymphatic activity. 1 key finding →
In our study, TSH was related neither to risk of AD nor with early MRI markers thereof, arguing against an important role of thyroid function in the development of AD. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Radiology·2021-01-05
Three women (aged 61, 72, and 73 years) consecutively enrolled in the trial successfully completed repeated focused ultrasound-induced BBB opening of the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex. 1 key finding →
Although white matter hyperintensities have traditionally been viewed as a marker of vascular disease, recent pathology studies have found an association between white matter hyperintensities and Alzheimer's disease pathologies. 4 key findings →
In idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus, we found delayed enhancement (P < 0.05) and decreased clearance of gadobutrol (P < 0.05) at the Sylvian fissure. 1 key finding →
To design clinical trials for the frontotemporal lobar degenerations (FTLD), knowledge about measurement of disease progression is needed to estimate power and enable the choice of optimal outcome measures. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·PloS one·2012-03-22
Accurate prediction of clinical changes of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients, including both qualitative change (i.e., conversion to Alzheimer's disease (AD)) and quantitative change (i.e., cognitive scores) at future time points, is important for early diagnosis of AD and for monitoring the disease progression. 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 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.