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 1,301–1,308 of 1,308 studies · free to read · tagged Brain Scans (page 53 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.

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the common signature of dysregulated brain glucose metabolism in late-onset age-associated neurodegenerative diseases (A2NDs), including Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,298 Evidence: high

Cerebral Small Vessel Disease and Risk of Cardiovascular Events and All-Cause Mortality: The Framingham Heart Study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-07

O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=113 SRC="FIGDIR/small/26361997v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (32K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1dac0d9org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@aaf8f2org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@be10a1org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@35c7be_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG BACKGROUNDThe effect of neurovascular health on cardiovascular outcomes is not well-known. 4 key findings →

Participants: 3,263 Evidence: moderate

Data-driven subtypes of Alzheimer's Disease: A multicohort study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-11

INTRODUCTIONIndividuals with Alzheimers disease (AD) exhibit substantial heterogeneity in the severity of vascular changes and neurodegeneration, making the identification of biologically meaningful subtypes across the AD spectrum critical for improving prognosis and tailoring interventions. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,396 Evidence: moderate

Clonal Haematopoiesis Tracks Alzheimer's-like Cortical Atrophy in Community-Dwelling Older Adults

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-12

BackgroundClonal haematopoiesis (CH), the age-related expansion of mutated blood stem cells, is detectable in around 10% of people in their seventies, rises steeply with age, and is associated with several diseases. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,091 Evidence: moderate

Association of plasma biomarkers with longitudinal change in age- and Alzheimer's disease-related brain atrophy patterns

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-17

INTRODUCTIONDetermining whether plasma biomarkers are preferentially associated with Alzheimers disease (AD)-related rather than age-related brain atrophy patterns may clarify their prognostic and diagnostic clinical use. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 818 Evidence: moderate

Laromestrocel preserves brain volume and cognitive function in Alzheimers disease by inhibiting neuroinflammation

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-17

Neuroinflammation is a principal driver of brain atrophy and cognitive decline in Alzheimers disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Participants: 49 Evidence: low

MTD showed excellent discrimination of CU versus MCI/DEM (AUC=.89; 95% CI=.87-.92), and discriminability remained high for CU versus MCI (AUC=.88; 95% CI=.85-.92). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,224 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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