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
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 351–375 of 1,308 studies · free to read · tagged Brain Scans(page 15 of 53)· 30,580 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; 16,054 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 58 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2016-03-22
Physical and cognitive exercise may prevent or delay dementia in later life but the neural mechanisms underlying these therapeutic benefits are largely unknown. 3 key findings →
The gap between predicted brain age using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and chronological age may serve as a biomarker for early-stage neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
Apolipoprotein (APOE) e4 genotype is an accepted risk factor for accelerated cognitive aging and dementia, though its neurostructural substrates are unclear. 4 key findings →
Total tau protein (T-Tau) and neurofilament light chain (NfL) have emerged as candidate plasma biomarkers of neurodegeneration, but studies have not compared how these biomarkers cross-sectionally or longitudinally associate with cognitive and neuroimaging measures. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Nature communications·2022-12-21
Medical imaging provides numerous insights into the subclinical changes that precede serious diseases such as heart disease and dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2021-12-07
The reference standard for amyloid-PET quantification requires structural MRI (sMRI) for preprocessing in both multi-site research studies and clinical trials. 4 key findings →
We analyzed data from 462 ADNI participants without dementia who underwent Aβ ([ 18 F]florbetapir or [ 18 F]florbetaben) and tau ([ 18 F]flortaucipir) PET, structural MRI, and cognitive testing. 4 key findings →
Braak stages of tau neurofibrillary tangle accumulation have been incorporated in the criteria for the neuropathological diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Nature Communications·2026-03-31
White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are neuroimaging markers widely interpreted as caused by cerebral small vessel disease, yet emerging evidence suggests that a subset may have a neurodegenerative etiology. 1 key finding →
Although amyloid imaging with PiB-PET ([C-11]Pittsburgh Compound-B positron emission tomography), and now with F-18-labeled tracers, has produced remarkably consistent qualitative findings across a large number of centers, there has been considerable variability in the exact numbers reported as quantitative outcome measures of tracer retention. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Brain·2008-03-12
The positron emission tomography (PET) radiotracer Pittsburgh Compound-B (PiB) binds with high affinity to beta-pleated sheet aggregates of the amyloid-beta (Abeta) peptide in vitro. 2 key findings →
Recent functional imaging studies have revealed coactivation in a distributed network of cortical regions that characterizes the resting state, or default mode, of the human brain.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neuron·2009-04-01
The study used network-sensitive neuroimaging methods to test whether neurodegenerative diseases target large-scale neural networks in living humans. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Cerebral Cortex·2008-07-16
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with neurodegeneration in vulnerable limbic and heteromodal regions of the cerebral cortex, detectable in vivo using magnetic resonance imaging.
The neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer disease (AD) include "positive" lesions such as amyloid plaques and cerebral amyloid angiopathy, neurofibrillary tangles, and glial responses, and "negative" lesions such as neuronal and synaptic loss. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neurology·2013-10-16
The incidence of amyloid PET positivity is approximately 13% per year among CN participants over age 70 sampled from a population-based cohort. 4 key findings →
Amyloid PET imaging has been crucial for detecting the accumulation of amyloid beta (Aβ) deposits in the brain and to study Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2013-09-01
These findings enhance understanding of AD risk factors by relating validated susceptibility alleles to increased neuritic plaque pathology and implicate common genetic variation at the APP locus in the earliest, presymptomatic stages of AD. 4 key findings →
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%),
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.
1,037 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.