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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 226–250 of 2,940 studies · tagged Brain Scans(page 10 of 118)· 28,180 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; 13,658 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Neurology·2021-04-14
In this longitudinal study of cognitively unimpaired adults, living in the most highly disadvantaged neighborhoods was associated with accelerated degeneration in Alzheimer signature regions and cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Neurology·2017-06-07
In clinically normal older adults, lower functional connectivity predicted more rapid decline in PACC scores over time, particularly when coupled with increased Aβ burden. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2019-02-01
Mediation analyses proposed that visceral obesity contributes to deep white matter lesions through increases in proinflammatory cytokines, suggesting a pathomechanistic link. 1 key finding →
This fifteen-year study provides a large database of highly characterized individuals with longitudinal cognitive, imaging and lifestyle data and biofluid collections, to aid in the development of interventions to delay onset, prevent or treat AD. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2023-06-01
Longitudinal tau positron emission tomography (PET) is a relevant outcome in clinical trials evaluating disease-modifying therapies in Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Biological psychiatry·2018-05-29
The number of ECT sessions and electrode placement impacts the extent and laterality of hippocampal enlargement, but volume change is not positively associated with clinical outcome. 4 key findings →
Higher visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure independent of average blood pressure was associated with impaired cognitive function in old age. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2002-05-01
This longitudinal quantitative magnetic resonance imaging study of 24 patients with mild temporal lobe epilepsy shows an ipsilateral hippocampal volume decrease of 9% (range, -30 to +0.5%; p = 0.002, paired t test) over a period of 3.5 +/- 0.7 years. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-01-22
A higher omega-3 index was correlated with larger total normal brain volume and hippocampal volume in postmenopausal women measured 8 years later. 3 key findings →
We examined the impact of physical activity (PA) on longitudinal change in hippocampal volume in cognitively intact older adults at varying genetic risk for the sporadic form of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Scores for periventricular hyperintensities in this sample included all possible degrees of severity, but no participant scored more than 75% of maximum for deep white-matter hyperintensities. 3 key findings →
Plasma phosphorylated-tau181 (p-tau181) showed the potential for Alzheimer's diagnosis and prognosis, but its role in detecting cerebral pathologies is unclear. 3 key findings →
Data from deformation-based magnetic resonance imaging morphometry demonstrated a Parkinson's disease-specific brain network had more atrophy in the diffuse malignant subtype, with the mild motor-predominant subtype having the least atrophy. 4 key findings →
For effective treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), it is important to identify subjects who are most likely to exhibit rapid cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
DNS-br total score and majority of the 11 DNS-br neurocognitive subdomain scores were significantly associated with FDG-PET resilience signature, PIB ratio, cerebral gray matter and white matter volume after adjusting for multiple testing. 5 key findings →
In the Asan cohort, after adjusting for age and sex, p-tau181 (AUC = 0.854) or APOE ε4 status (AUC = 0.769) distinguished Aβ status with high accuracy. 5 key findings →
Daily driving is a multi-faceted, real-world, behavioral measure of cognitive functioning requiring multiple cognitive domains working synergistically to complete this instrumental activity of daily living. 1 key finding →
Plasma p-tau217 and cortical FTP-SUVR were correlated (r = 0.61, p < .001), especially in temporo-parietal and dorsolateral frontal cortices. 4 key findings →
10 of the 2,925 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
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.
1,034 records (3.7% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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.