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 2,776–2,800 of 2,940 studies · tagged Brain Scans(page 112 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 35 out of 100.·PET clinics·2010-01-01
The progressive nature of neurodegeneration suggests an age-dependent process that ultimately leads to synaptic failure and neuronal damage in cortical areas of the brain critical for memory and higher mental functions. 1 key finding →
When evaluating the 'bleeding load' with 7.0-T T₂*-weighted MRI in post-mortem brain sections of patients with dementia and vascular risk factors, only quantification of small cerebral bleeds in the cortico-subcortical regions is reliable. 3 key findings →
The emergence of drugs that may slow progression of Alzheimer disease, if administered early during its course, has necessitated early diagnosis of the disease itself. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·1996-12-01
Magnetic resonance imaging is potentially a valuable tool in the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease in adults with Down syndrome, particularly in individuals for whom standard intellectual assessments are not possible. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2016-05-17
Currently, several immunotherapies and BACE (Beta Site APP Cleaving Enzyme) inhibitor approaches are being tested in the clinic for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
We believe that the amyloid-PET scans, perceived as showing decreasing amyloid deposits, are an expression of increased cerebral cell death due to aducanumab treatment, so that with time one should instead expect a worsening and not an improvement in the treated patients' condition. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-12-04
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a significant neurological condition characterized by progressive cognitive deterioration, with prevalence rising exponentially with age. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100.·Diagnostics·2026-02-16
The experimental findings on a multiclass MRI dataset of Alzheimer disease demonstrate consistent and high performance across cross-validation folds (mean F1-score (0.991 ± 0.003) and AUROC (0.9998 ± 0.0002)), without losing transparency and progress awareness. 2 key findings →
Roughly 32 million people worldwide live with Alzheimer disease, yet the vascular contributions to its progression remain incompletely mapped. 5 key findings →
Florbetaben (FBB) is a radiopharmaceutical approved by the FDA and EMA in 2014 for the positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of brain amyloid deposition in patients with cognitive impairment who are being evaluated for Alzheimer's disease (AD) or other causes of cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia can often be diagnosed accurately with careful clinical history, cognitive testing, neurological examination, and structural brain MRI. 1 key finding →
The potential of brain imaging has grown rapidly with new modalities, hybrid combinations of existing modalities, and novel metabolic tracers. 4 key findings →
The goals of this study were to compare the early diagnostic utility of Alzheimer disease biomarkers in the CSF with those in brain MRI in conditions found in our clinical practice, and to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy of both techniques used together. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100.·Human Brain Mapping·2026-04-01
Positron emission tomography (PET) provides an in vivo molecular marker for various diseases, including Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100.·Discover Neuroscience·2026-06-28
Flortaucipir (FTP) PET imaging was developed to quantify tau burden in tauopathies such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and to distinguish AD from other dementias, including frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). 4 key findings →
A pilot study was performed to test the ability of MR to evaluate the brain lucencies shown by CT in Alzheimer disease patients and in normal control subjects. 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.