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 26–50 of 152 studies with an author at University of California, San Francisco (US) · tagged Brain Scans (page 2 of 7) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 152 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.

Temporal Dynamics and Biological Variability of Alzheimer Biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2025-02-17

Among the plasma biomarkers, phosphorylated tau (p-tau) 217 exhibited the highest concordance rate with Aβ (2326 of 2571 [90.5%]) and tau (100 of 120 [83.3%]) PET. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,611 Evidence: moderate

Sex and age differences in atrophic rates: an ADNI study with n=1368 MRI scans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2010-08-01

We set out to determine factors that influence the rate of brain atrophy in 1-year longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 363 Evidence: moderate

Concordance Between Amyloid-PET Quantification and Real-World Visual Reads

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2025-09-01

Of 18 293 participants included in the parent study, scan images were available for 10 774 (59%), of which Centiloids were successfully calculated for 10 361 (96%). 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 294 Evidence: low

When compared to post-mortem amyloid burden, low proposed thresholds were more sensitive than high thresholds (sensitivities: distribution volume ratiolow 81.0%, standard uptake value ratiolow 83.3%; distribution volume ratiohigh 61.9%, standard uptake value ratiohigh 62.5%) for CERAD moderate-to-frequent neuritic plaques, with similar specificity (distribution volume ratiolow 95.8%; standard uptake value ratiolow, distribution volume ratiohigh and standard uptake value ratiohigh 100.0%). 2 key findings →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

The use of AC medication was associated with increased brain atrophy and dysfunction and clinical decline. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

We used a new method of pooling cerebrospinal fluid Aβ42 and Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography measures to produce equivalent measures of brain Aβ load from either source and analysed the results using multiple imputation methods. 3 key findings →

Participants: 165 Evidence: low

A total of 807 K-ROAD participants (median age 72.0 years, 58.7% female) and 230 ADNI participants (median age 70.9 years, 49.1% female) were analyzed. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 807 Evidence: moderate

Comorbid cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors (CVM) differentially impact brain structure and increase dementia risk, but their specific magnetic resonance imaging signatures (MRI) remain poorly characterized. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 37,096 Evidence: moderate

The data set included 18 178 patients, of which 10 991 (60.5%) had MCI and 7187 (39.5%) had dementia (mean [SD] age, 75.8 [6.3] years; 9333 women [51.3%]). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18 Evidence: low

In Alzheimer's disease, post-mortem studies have shown that the first cortical site where neurofibrillary tangles appear is the transentorhinal region, a subregion within the medial temporal lobe that largely overlaps with Brodmann area 35, and the entorhinal cortex. 5 key findings →

Participants: 215 Evidence: low

We evaluated 62 Automated speech analysis demonstrated high accuracy in differentiating FTD subtypes and provided insights into the neural basis of language impairments. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 16 Evidence: moderate

Amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging is being investigated as a screening tool to identify amyloid-positive patients as an enrichment strategy for Alzheimer disease (AD) clinical trial enrollment. 1 key finding →

Participants: 278 Evidence: low

To evaluate reverse causation, we assessed whether a polygenic risk score for AD is associated with HGS. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

MRI and CSF biomarkers in normal, MCI, and AD subjects: predicting future clinical change

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2009-07-01

MRI and CSF provide complimentary predictive information about time to conversion from amnestic mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease and combination of the 2 provides better prediction than either source alone. 3 key findings →

Participants: 399 Evidence: low

Although beta-amyloid (Abeta) plaques are a primary diagnostic criterion for Alzheimer's disease, this pathology is commonly observed in the brains of non-demented older individuals. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

Brain properties predict proximity to symptom onset in sporadic Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2018-06-01

Within the training set, individuals closer to or beyond their parent's symptom onset demonstrated reduced grey matter volume and altered functional connectivity, specifically in regions known to be vulnerable in Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 138 Evidence: moderate

Females had higher rates of positive amyloid PET visual reads (63% vs. 59%, P < 0.001) and higher Centiloids (CLs; median 48.7 vs. 36.8, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →

Participants: 10,361 Evidence: moderate

Patients with behavioural Alzheimer's disease showed worse memory scores than behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and did not differ from typical Alzheimer's disease, while executive function composite scores were lower compared to behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and typical Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 17 Evidence: low

We found no significant correlation between CSF biomarkers and cognitive scores in any of the 3 clinical groups individually. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 399 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. 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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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