Get help now — free helplines

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 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call 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) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed 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.

Find studies

Showing 501–525 of 1,308 studies · free to read · tagged Brain Scans (page 21 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)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

Sex Differences in Alzheimer Disease Imaging Biomarkers in a Diverse, Community-Based Cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-01-27

A total of 503 participants (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [2.8] years; 321 [63.8%] women; 305 [60.6%] Hispanic, 120 [23.9%] non-Hispanic Black, and 78 [15.5%] non-Hispanic White) with Aβ PET, MRI (n = 501), and tau PET (n = 355) data were studied. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 501 Evidence: moderate

Low baseline Aβ42/Aβ40 was significantly associated with increased amyloid accumulation (β = 0.257, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.177-0.336, P < 0.001), and with higher risk of conversion to Aβ-PET positivity (Hazard ratio (HR) = 2.84, 95% CI 1.14-7.04, P = 0.025) and to MCI due to AD (HR = 3.25, 95% CI 1.17-9.01, P = 0.024). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 200 Evidence: moderate

Our results suggest that microstructural features derived from NODDI such as fISO might be useful adjunct markers to tau, which needs to be confirmed in longitudinal studies. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 80 Evidence: moderate

Of 104 metabolites studied, glycodeoxycholic acid (GDCA) surpassed the false discovery rate and was associated the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale version 13 (ADAS-Cog13) score (β = 0.12, 95 % CI = 0.05-0.20, p = 0.001) and cognitive impairment determined by mini-mental status exam (MMSE) (OR = 2.11, 95 % CI = 1.41-3.15, p < 0.001). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 578 Evidence: moderate

The Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable convened a working group to review data on amyloid imaging related abnormalities (ARIA) in response to concerns raised by the Food and Drug Administration. 3 key findings →

In all 6 patients (3 women and 3 men; mean age 61.8 years), the underlying clinical phenotype was associated with the regional distribution of the [18F]AV-1451 signal. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Overall visual ratings showed complete concordance between radiotracers for both the medial temporal lobe and the neocortex. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In cohort 1, PVEC increased the effect on AD-versus-HC discrimination from a Cohen d value of 1.68 to 2.0 for composite SUVRs and from 0.04 to 1.04 for mesial temporal cortex SUVRs. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a promising biomarker for risk stratification and disease monitoring of dementia, but its utility in the preclinical disease stage remains uncertain. 4 key findings →

Participants: 975 Evidence: low

Longitudinal patterns of clinical decline differ between LPA and PCA but are heterogeneous and related to different patterns of topographic spread. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate

Our study provides evidence that plasma p-tau217 has strong discriminative accuracy for AD among patients with early-onset and/or atypical dementia assessed in specialized settings. 4 key findings →

Participants: 81 Evidence: low

Neuropathologic basis of age-associated brain atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2013-05-01

Ventricular volume trajectory is more sensitive than total brain and hippocampal volume trajectories as a marker of accruing Alzheimer disease and vascular pathology in elderly individuals. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The association between moderate-severe chronic kidney disease and white matter hyperintensity volume highlights the growing importance of kidney disease as a possible determinant of cerebrovascular disease and/or as a marker of microangiopathy. 5 key findings →

Participants: 615 Evidence: moderate

When compared with the other groups, AD patients demonstrated significantly higher SUVRs (P Conclusion (18)F-florbetaben had high sensitivity for AD, clearly distinguished patients with FTLD from AD, and provided results comparable to those reported with (11)C-Pittsburgh Compound B in a variety of neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Moreover, the presence of Aβ+ was associated with an elevated [18F]-AV-1451 SUVR in AD cortical signature regions (Aβ+ participants: mean [SD], 1.3 [0.3]; Aβ- participants: 1.1 [0.1]; F = 4.3, P = .04) but not in the hippocampus. 3 key findings →

Participants: 59 Evidence: low

The PLI performed at least as well as the PC in detecting true changes in synchronization in model and real data but, at the same token and like-wise the IC, it was much less affected by the influence of common sources and active reference electrodes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ Change the filters

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.

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 30,580 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed    Where this research is being discussed: events