alzhub.org
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.

Research

30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1,251–1,275 of 1,308 studies · free to read · tagged Brain Scans (page 51 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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

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.

Blood-brain barrier permeability changes and neuroinflammation in Alzheimer disease progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. International Journal of Biology Sciences 2025-06-01

Roughly 32 million people worldwide live with Alzheimer disease, yet the vascular contributions to its progression remain incompletely mapped. 5 key findings →

Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

A comparison of early diagnostic utility of Alzheimer disease biomarkers in brain magnetic resonance and cerebrospinal fluid

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Neurologia (Barcelona, Spain) 2013-08-20

The goals of this study were to compare the early diagnostic utility of Alzheimer disease biomarkers in the CSF with those in brain MRI in conditions found in our clinical practice, and to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy of both techniques used together. 4 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Neuropathological perspectives on neuroinflammation and tau molecular imaging in frontotemporal lobar degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Discover Neuroscience 2026-06-28

Flortaucipir (FTP) PET imaging was developed to quantify tau burden in tauopathies such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and to distinguish AD from other dementias, including frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association of residential neighborhood disadvantage with amyloid PET positivity among cognitively impaired individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) 2026-05-29

Among 15,346 White, 829 Latino, 637 Black/African American, and 321 Asian individuals, 51% were female, mean age was 75.7 years, 535 (3.8%) resided in ADI 91 to 100 decile, and 61.6% were amyloid PET positive. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Multimodal Deep Learning for Dynamic and Static Neuroimaging: Integrating MRI and fMRI for Alzheimer Disease Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Journal of Machine Learning for Modeling and Computing 2026-01-01

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) provides detailed structural information, while functional MRI (fMRI) captures temporal brain activity. 2 key findings →

Participants: 29 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The evolving roles of imaging and fluid biomarkers for Alzheimer disease over the past quarter century

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

In 2004, the first radiotracer that bound amyloid plaques was reported, which enabled visualization of the amount and regional distribution of amyloid plaques in the brains of living individuals via positron emission tomography (PET). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

A Case of Late‐Onset Semantic Dementia With Right‐Predominant Temporal Lobe Atrophy due to Primary Tauopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Psychogeriatrics 2025-09-01

Semantic dementia (SD) is a type of dementia characterized by a loss of semantic memory, typically presenting with left-predominant temporal lobe atrophy and a frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP-43 (FTLD-TDP) type C pathology. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Synthesis of Amyloid Images Using a Generative Adversarial Network from 2-Dimensional 18 F-FDG Images and Evaluation for Clinical Use

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology 2026-01-13

Synthetic images were visually consistent, producing plausible negative and positive patterns while preserving continuity in the sagittal plane. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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