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 1,076–1,100 of 1,308 studies · free to read · tagged Brain Scans (page 44 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.

Overall PiB-PET uptake increased during the first two years (before ARIA-E) and decreased during the last two years (including ARIA-E episodes) (0.03±0.05 vs. -0.04±0.04 SUVR/year, p-value=0.01, Figure 2). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Magnetic resonance imaging based dementia severity assessment facilitates timely diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) progression. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

These findings support the feasibility, tolerability, and high patient acceptability of pMRI. 3 key findings →

Participants: 130 Evidence: low

This bibliometric review examines the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) in neurodegenerative diseases research from 2000 to March 16, 2025, utilizing data from 1,402 publications (1,159 articles, 243 reviews) indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

As the leading cause of dementia worldwide, Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) has prompted significant interest in developing Deep Learning (DL) approaches for its classification. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Predicting the transition from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD) has important clinical significance for dementia prevention and improving patient prognosis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Data from 262 records (260 unique participants) were analyzed. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

The aim of this study is to build and validate a model based on structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) to predict the progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 240 Evidence: low

Accurate dementia risk prediction is challenging, and may be facilitated by better use of imaging and genetic data, including their complex interactions. 1 key finding →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 3,521 Evidence: low

Genetic variants increase the risk of neurocognitive disorders in later life, including vascular dementia (VaD) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but the precise relationships between genetic risk factors and underlying disease etiologies are not well understood. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Amyloid status moderated associations between IIV-dispersion and WMH, such that higher IIV-dispersion was associated with greater WMH in Aß+ individuals whether WMH was examined as a continuous (B = 0.30, ß = 0.13, p = .006) or a dichotomous variable based on quartiles (odds ratio [OR] = 2.41, p < .001). 4 key findings →

Participants: 819 Evidence: low

= 0.71) longitudinally. YKL-40 associations with FW and FW-corrected fractional anisotropy were null. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Each 1-SD increase in eGDR was significantly associated with a reduction in WMH volume (β = -0.057; 95% CI: -0.062 to -0.051; p 0.05). 3 key findings →

Participants: 34,789 Evidence: moderate

The concentration of 124 I-RmAb158-scFv8D3, as measured in vivo with PET, increased with age and corresponded well with the ex vivo autoradiography and Aβ immunohistochemistry results. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Small-molecule PET Tracers for Imaging Proteinopathies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Seminars in nuclear medicine 2017-07-13

In this chapter, we provide a review of the challenges and advances in developing successful PET imaging agents for 3 major types of aggregated amyloid proteins: amyloid-beta (Aβ), tau, and alpha-synuclein (α-syn). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Default mode network resting state activity in posterior cingulate cortex is abnormally reduced in Alzheimer disease (AD) patients. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

We found differential region-specific associations between degenerative and vascular processes and the structural integrity of the CC across the spectrum of cognitive ability. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) volumetric measures have become a standard tool for the detection of incipient Alzheimer's Disease (AD) dementia in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 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