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 2,676–2,700 of 2,940 studies · tagged Brain Scans(page 108 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.
Most previous magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies of patients with bipolar disorder (BD) report similar hippocampus (HC) volumes across patients and controls, but because patients studied were heterogeneous with respect to course of illness variables and medication status, the conclusions of these studies remain equivocal. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Epilepsia·1994-01-01
In the study of brain morphometry, it is accepted that a relationship exists between brain structure and function, both normal and abnormal. 5 key findings →
The concept of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) describes older people who show a decline predominantly in memory function, but who do not meet criteria for dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Human brain mapping·2014-02-14
We compared hippocampal volume measures obtained by manual tracing to automatic segmentation with FreeSurfer in 44 younger (20-30 years) and 47 older (60-70 years) adults, each measured with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) over three successive time points, separated by four months. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Biological psychiatry·2004-12-01
This result replicates previous findings of smaller hippocampal volumes in PTSD patients, but in an underinvestigated population, suggesting that either smaller hippocampal volume is a predisposing factor in the development of PTSD or that damage occurs within months of trauma, rather than a number of years. 5 key findings →
Recent epidemiological and experimental studies suggest a link between cognitive decline in late adulthood and sports concussions sustained in early adulthood. 2 key findings →
This study demonstrates that the impact of the BDNF Val66Met polymorphism is not confined to the hippocampus but also extends to the parahippocampal gyrus and the amygdala. 3 key findings →
The hippocampus is essential for the formation and retrieval of memories and is a crucial neural structure sub-serving complex cognition. 2 key findings →
Bipolar disorder (BD) is thought to be associated with abnormalities within discrete brain regions associated with emotional regulation, particularly in fronto-limbic-subcortical circuits. 5 key findings →
These results suggest that alterations in amygdala:hippocampal volume ratios in pediatric MDD may more reflect severity of associated anxiety than depression. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2008-08-12
Since hippocampal volume has been found to be an early biomarker for Alzheimer's disease, there is large interest in automated methods to accurately, robustly, and reproducibly extract the hippocampus from MRI data. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2009-05-15
Due to its crucial role for memory processes and its relevance in neurological and psychiatric disorders, the hippocampus has been the focus of neuroimaging research for several decades. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Biological psychiatry·2010-09-15
The present results suggest that OXTR might be associated with the susceptibility to ASD, especially in its aspects of social interaction and communication mediated by a modulation of amygdala development, one of the most distributed brain regions with high density of OXTR. 5 key findings →
The FDG-positive subgroup showed only hypometabolism, predominantly in AD-sensitive areas extending to the whole neocortex, compared with the FDG-negative subgroup. 5 key findings →
This study examined relations of mesiotemporal lobe tissue volumes with neuropsychological (NP) functions in a sample of patients with first episode schizophrenia. 2 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.