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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 2,801–2,825 of 2,900 studies · tagged Brain Scans(page 113 of 116)· 27,780 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; 13,259 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.
Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder affecting millions globally, with early detection being critical for effective management. 2 key findings →
Early detection of Alzheimer's disease is crucial for effective treatment, and the use of brain MRI images has become a common method for diagnosis. 2 key findings →
The Early Stages of Alzheimer’s Detection project focuses on identifying signs of Alzheimer’s disease at the earliest possible stage using advanced machine learning and medical imaging techniques. 3 key findings →
The Early Stages of Alzheimer’s Detection project focuses on identifying signs of Alzheimer’s disease at the earliest possible stage using advanced machine learning and medical imaging techniques. 3 key findings →
This study proposes a deep learning-based framework to detect and classify Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the early stages using medical imaging, and specifically Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100.·Neurology Bulletin·2025-12-16
Alzheimer disease represents a major medical and social challenge owning to the complexity of its diagnosis, especially at the preclinical stage. 1 key finding →
In recent years, it has been possible for patients with Down syndrome to live longer with advanced medical treatment and social support. 5 key findings →
The accurate diagnosis tends to remain critical for the improvement of the patient outcomes in the Alzheimer’s disease (AD), where a progressive neurodegenerative disorder with the growing of the global impact. 2 key findings →
This survey presents 50 research papers focussed on various techniques in Alzheimer classification techniques using 3D MRI images, and the categorisation of the techniques is made based on the fusion-based, convolutional neural network (CNN)-based, random forest (RF)-based and support vector machine (SVM)-based approaches. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2019-12-15
OASIS-3 is a compilation of MRI and PET imaging and related clinical data for 1098 participants who were collected across several ongoing studies in the Washington University Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center over the course of 15 years. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2025-03-19
Adults with Down syndrome carry high risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and efforts to include this population in clinical trials remain limited. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-19
Cognitively normal older adults are often regarded as a homogeneous population in preventive and disease-modifying clinical trials for dementia. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-22
BackgroundThe brain age gap (BAG), the difference between neuroimaging-predicted and chronological age, captures inter-individual variation in brain aging. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-25
INTRODUCTIONNeurodegenerative research identifies biomarkers to confirm presence of disease and inform about risk for clinical symptoms. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-31
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the common signature of dysregulated brain glucose metabolism in late-onset age-associated neurodegenerative diseases (A2NDs), including Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 2 key findings →
10 of the 2,885 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%),
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.