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
29,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,226–1,250 of 1,308 studies · free to read · tagged Brain Scans(page 50 of 53)· 29,780 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; 15,255 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.
Three robustly differentiated AD subtypes (S1, S2, and S3) were identified, with 93% validation accuracy and Adjusted Mutual Information scores >0.89, each exhibiting distinct tau patterns. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is one of the most common neurological disorders affecting older adults, with approximately 7.2 million cases only in the United States. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100.·Applied Sciences·2025-03-06
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), peripheral and central neurological disorders affect approximately one billion people worldwide. 4 key findings →
In this study, we investigated the effects of chronic administration of an inhibitor of the β-site amyloid precursor protein-cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) on Alzheimer-related pathology by multitracer PET imaging in transgenic APPPS1-21 (TG) mice. 4 key findings →
Here the current and emerging roles of brain positron emission tomography (PET) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the era of anti-amyloid-β antibody therapy, with a focus on clinical applications, methodological considerations, and future perspectives were reviewed. 5 key findings →
Among 1,706 participants (mean age 56 years, 62% female, 28% Black), midlife NAFLD vs no NAFLD was associated with greater late-life WMH volume (difference per SD 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.31) and faster late-life WMH increase over 6 years (difference in annual change, SD 0.28, 95% CI 0.05-0.51), suggesting accumulating vascular pathology. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Neurological Sciences·2025-08-25
In the whole sample, both PRSs were associated with the strength of correlation between GMV and different serotonin receptors and fluorodopa uptake. 2 key findings →
Lecanemab reduced clinical decline by roughly 27% over placebo, with ARIA-E in 12.6% of treated patients;donanemab slowed decline by about 35%, with ARIA-E near 24%. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·npj Dementia·2026-07-01
Blood-based biomarkers are increasingly used to triage patients for amyloid confirmation, yet performance is often reported versus a single comparator despite discordance between amyloid PET and CSF. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Tomography·2025-12-26
Random Forest achieves the highest accuracy of 97% on clinical data, while CNN achieves the best overall performance of 94% in MRI-based staging. 4 key findings →
The ABC-DS cohort showed similar Aβ PET burden but had a lower prevalence of ApoE4 carriers, younger age at clinical diagnosis and autopsy, shorter PET-autopsy interval, smaller amygdala and hippocampal volumes, more advanced CERAD scores, and no atherosclerosis compared to ADRC cohort (Figure 1). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2016-05-17
Currently, several immunotherapies and BACE (Beta Site APP Cleaving Enzyme) inhibitor approaches are being tested in the clinic for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
We believe that the amyloid-PET scans, perceived as showing decreasing amyloid deposits, are an expression of increased cerebral cell death due to aducanumab treatment, so that with time one should instead expect a worsening and not an improvement in the treated patients' condition. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-12-04
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a significant neurological condition characterized by progressive cognitive deterioration, with prevalence rising exponentially with age. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100.·Diagnostics·2026-02-16
The experimental findings on a multiclass MRI dataset of Alzheimer disease demonstrate consistent and high performance across cross-validation folds (mean F1-score (0.991 ± 0.003) and AUROC (0.9998 ± 0.0002)), without losing transparency and progress awareness. 2 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%),
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.