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 1,001–1,025 of 1,308 studies · free to read · tagged Brain Scans (page 41 of 53) · 29,380 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.

Microglia constitute the primary resident immune surveillance cell in the brain and are thought to play a significant role in the pathogenesis of several neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and HIV-associated dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Amyloid-PET demonstrated high sensitivity (100% in year 1, 94.67% in year 4) and a high negative predictive value (100% in year 1, 88.24% in year 4). 5 key findings →

Participants: 145 Evidence: low

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising non-invasive intervention for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 55 Evidence: moderate

We analyzed data from 3433 dementia-free participants with either magnetic resonance imaging or positron emission tomography (PET) data at baseline (mean [standard deviation] age: 65 [9] years, 36% non-Hispanic White [NHW], 27% Black, 37% Hispanic, and 63% women). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by the pathological accumulation of amyloid plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau proteins, leading to disruptions in synaptic transmission and neural circuit alterations. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The 4R-like pattern was more prevalent and more strongly expressed (84.3%, mean score, 2.0 ± 1.1) in patients with a consensus diagnosis of PSP/CBD (joint diagnostic group of clinically likely 4R tauopathies) than in all other groups (11.6%, 0.26 ± 0.75, P < 0.0001). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Individuals with msWMH showed systematic deficits in face-memory processing across encoding, maintenance, and retrieval, accompanied by reduced theta power and synchronization, altered alpha power, and disrupted theta-gamma coupling. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Quantification results using the proposed deep learning-based method showed stronger correlations with the FreeSurfer estimates than SPM-based SN using MRI did. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have demonstrated that moment-to-moment variability in the blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal is related to age differences, cognition, and symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 321 Evidence: low

Brain 18F-FDG PET scans interpreted with Neurostat and 3D-SSP displays accurately detected Alzheimer disease in patients with primary progressive aphasia or corticobasal syndrome as focal-onset dementias. 2 key findings →

Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate

Using amyloid PET imaging as a single primary surrogate efficacy measure in Alzheimer's disease immunotherapy trials, as happened when the FDA granted accelerated approval of aducanumab, is unjustified. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The groups of individuals who agreed to participate in the imaging substudies of AD trials were remarkably comparable to the comparison groups at baseline on a wide range of demographic and clinical measures; there seems to be a minimal effect of self-selection bias. 4 key findings →

Participants: 166 Evidence: high

The Northwestern University SuperAging Project recruits community dwellers over the age of 80 who have unusually high performance on tests of episodic memory. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

Functional MRI has recently been used to examine activation associated with aging and dementia, yet little is known regarding the effect of cerebral atrophy on fMRI signal. 5 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: low

The percentage of unmetabolized 18 F-T807 in plasma followed a single exponential with a half-life of 17.0 ± 4.2 min. Metabolite-corrected plasma radioactivity concentration fit a biexponential (half-lives, 18.1 ± 5.8 and 2.4 ± 0.5 min). 18 F-T807 in gray matter peaked quickly (SUV > 2 at ∼5 min). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The plasma reference graphical analysis appeared to be the optimal method of quantification for 18 F-RO-948, yielding strictly time-consistent values of distribution volume and distribution volume ratio at 90 min against the analyses at 120 and 200 min. The reference tissue graphical analysis and SUV ratio were cross-validated against plasma reference graphical analysis. 4 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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.

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

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed