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 76–98 of 98 studies in Long-term cohort studies · tagged Brain Scans (page 4 of 4) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 98 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.

What “Long-term cohort studies” covers

Long-term cohort studies — Large groups of people followed for years, tracking who develops dementia and what came before it.

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.

A growing body of literature has suggested that obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and habitual short sleep duration are linked to poor cognitive function. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

BackgroundA novel neuroimaging signature of regional cortical thickness on brain MRI recently showed high potential for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) risk stratification in the community. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,249 Evidence: low

After controlling for the level of cognitive impairment, we found a double dissociation between AD clinical phenotype and localization/magnitude of atrophy, characterized by predominant neocortical involvement in EOAD and more focal anterior medial temporal involvement in LOAD. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Increasingly, clinical trials are being planned in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to prevent or delay the onset of dementia in Alzheimer disease (AD) by disease-modifying intervention. 4 key findings →

Participants: 44 Evidence: low

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) show patterns of change in Alzheimer's disease (AD) that precede dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Effects of ApoE4 and maternal history of dementia on hippocampal atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2010-09-15

We applied an automated hippocampal segmentation technique based on adaptive boosting (AdaBoost) to the 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) baseline and 1-year follow-up data of 243 subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 96 with Alzheimer's disease (AD), and 145 normal controls (NC) scanned as part of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 3 key findings →

Participants: 243 Evidence: low

Positron emission tomography (PET) with the glucose analog F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) is widely used in the diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases. 4 key findings →

Participants: 77 Evidence: low

We investigated the performance of FDG PET using an automated procedure for discrimination between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and controls, and studied the influence of demographic and technical factors. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is a transitional stage between normal aging and dementia and people with MCI are at high risk of progression to dementia. 4 key findings →

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

Regular opioid use was associated with a 20% higher risk of all-cause dementia and a 49% higher risk of vascular dementia (VD) compared with those not using analgesics. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Selecting a set of relevant markers to predict conversion from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD) has become a challenging task given the wealth of regional pathologic information that can be extracted from multimodal imaging data. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In this study, we present a comprehensive pipeline to train and compare a broad spectrum of machine learning and deep learning brain clocks, integrating diverse preprocessing strategies and correction terms. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) recently added diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), among several other new imaging modalities, in an effort to identify sensitive biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A Pipeline for ADNI Resting-State Functional MRI Processing and Quality Control

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-10-06

The Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) provides a comprehensive multimodal neuroimaging resource for studying aging and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease classification by means of Magnetic Resonance Imaging demands strong models that are able to generalise to different stages of dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Explainability methods applied to deep learning models for Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging produce attribution maps that vary substantially across methods and architectures, yet no validated quantitative framework exists for determining which method most faithfully localises attribution signal within established AD neuroimaging biomarker anatomy at the individual subject level. 5 key findings →

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. Show only studies that are free to read

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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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