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 426–450 of 2,900 studies · tagged Brain Scans(page 18 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Stroke·2010-02-18
In a large community-based sample of middle-aged adults, BI predicted an increased risk of stroke and dementia independent of vascular risk factors. 5 key findings →
Changes in the properties of DTI may be the potential mechanism of WMH-related MCI, especially the right IFOF and the right ILF, which may become imaging markers for predicting WMH-related cognitive dysfunction. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Human brain mapping·2021-10-09
The structure and integrity of the ageing brain is interchangeably linked to physical health, and cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRs) are associated with dementia and other brain disorders. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2017-02-06
Our study demonstrates that MRI, a widespread imaging technology, can individually identify bvFTD with high accuracy in multi-center imaging data, paving the road to personalized diagnostic approaches in the future. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2021-12-03
White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are commonly assumed to represent non-specific cerebrovascular disease comorbid to neurodegenerative processes, rather than playing a synergistic role. 4 key findings →
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 →
At baseline, Aβ+ participants showed higher CP FWf, increased white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume, and decreased diffusion tensor image analysis along the perivascular space (DTI-ALPS). 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) has a strong genetic component, with APOE ε4 being the most established risk factor through its effects on beta-amyloid (Aβ) metabolism and microglial function. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2006-03-14
In this study, researchers assessed the validity and reliability of an automated labeling system developed to subdivide the human cerebral cortex on magnetic resonance images into gyral based regions of interest. 3 key findings →
For amyloid positron emission tomography positive (Aβ+) subjects, flortaucipir neocortical standard uptake value ratio was significantly higher with more advanced clinical stage (Alzheimer's disease > mild cognitive impairment > older cognitively normal) and was significantly elevated for Aβ+ mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease subjects relative to the respective Aβ- subjects. 5 key findings →
White matter hyperintensities (WMH) is mainly caused by cerebrovascular injury and may also increase the possibilities of progression to Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·PloS one·2022-11-03
Compared to CSF p-tau, meta-temporal, and averaged Braak tau PET ROIs, SPARE-Tau showed the strongest association with baseline ADAS-cog13 scores and diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Across different tau biomarker groups, the proportion of participants with a discordant profile varied (plasma+/CSF- 15.6%, plasma-/CSF+ 15.3%, plasma+/PET- 22.4%, and plasma-/PET+ 6.1%). 5 key findings →
White matter hyperintensities (WMH) - - areas of increased signal appearing on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging - - are associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) risk and progression in late onset and genetic forms. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2012-04-09
This cross-sectional evaluation of the NIA-AA criteria for preclinical AD indicates that the 1-3 staging criteria coupled with stage 0 and SNAP categories classify 97% of CN subjects from a population-based sample, leaving only 3% unclassified. 2 key findings →
The CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 and Aβ42/Aβ38 ratios are significantly better than CSF Aβ42 to detect brain amyloid deposition in prodromal AD and to differentiate AD dementia from non-AD dementias. 5 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.