Get help now — free helplines

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 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call 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) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed 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.

Find studies

Showing 501–525 of 2,900 studies · tagged Brain Scans (page 21 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)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

An ECL immunoassay testing plasma P-tau217 accurately predicts amyloid PET positivity in cognitively unimpaired individuals. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

A blood-based biomarker workflow for optimal tau-PET referral in memory clinic settings

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Nature communications 2024-03-14

Blood-based biomarkers for screening may guide tau positrion emissition tomography (PET) scan referrals to optimize prognostic evaluation in Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 548 Evidence: low

PD patients who develop poor outcomes show lower DTI-ALPS, potentially reflecting impaired glymphatic clearance. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Plasma NfL level is a valuable noninvasive biomarker that supplements magnetic resonance imaging scans and possibly reflects the severity of CSVD burden. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 496 Evidence: moderate

The quality of included studies with only a few longitudinal studies, limits the conclusions which may be drawn from the present findings especially regarding the biomarkers other than hippocampal volume. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 40 Evidence: high

Plasma β-synuclein demonstrated discriminative properties for Aβ PET positive and negative subjects. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 51 Evidence: moderate

Donepezil and memantine have similar modest clinical and spectroscopic effect on mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 32 Evidence: high

No registered drug affects the deposition of Aβ in the brain of AD patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: high

Discrimination between Alzheimer dementia and controls by automated analysis of multicenter FDG PET

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. NeuroImage 2002-09-01

A new diagnostic indicator of FDG PET scan abnormality, based on age-adjusted t statistics and an automated voxel-based procedure, is presented and validated in a large data set comprising 110 normal controls and 395 patients with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) that were studied in eight participating centers. 5 key findings →

Participants: 395 Evidence: low

Standardized automated analysis of (18)F-FDG PET scans may provide an objective and sensitive support to the clinical diagnosis in early dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 548 Evidence: low

Use of structural magnetic resonance imaging to predict who will get Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2000-04-01

We used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements to determine whether persons in the prodromal phase of Alzheimer's disease (AD) could be accurately identified before they developed clinically diagnosed dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 24 Evidence: low

Progressive CMRglc reductions on FDG-PET occur years in advance of clinical DAT symptoms in patients with pathologically verified disease. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Comparison of different MRI brain atrophy rate measures with clinical disease progression in AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurology 2004-02-01

These data support the use of rates of change from serial MRI studies in addition to standard clinical/psychometric measures as surrogate markers of disease progression in AD. 1 key finding →

Participants: 55 Evidence: low

Hippocampal formation glucose metabolism and volume losses in MCI and AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2001-07-01

We used MRI volume sampling with coregistered and atrophy corrected FDG-PET scans to test three hypotheses: 1) hippocampal formation measures are superior to temporal neocortical measures in the discrimination of normal (NL) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI); 2) neocortical measures are most useful in the separation of Alzheimer disease (AD) from NL or MCI; 3) measures of PET glucose metabolism (MRglu) have greater diagnostic sensitivity than MRI volume. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

We compared the predictive value of cerebral perfusion as measured by arterial-spin labeling magnetic resonance imaging (ASL-MRI) with MRI-derived hippocampal volume for determining future cognitive and functional decline and subsequent conversion from mild cognitive impairment to dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Symptomatic mutation carriers also demonstrated elevated tau PET binding in the basal ganglia, consistent with prior work with amyloid-β. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Rates of brain atrophy and/or ventricular enlargement were correlated with declining performance on cognitive scales. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In contrast to no change in global cortical SUVR in the CU- and CU+ groups during the 2-y period, global cortical SUVR increased by 0.06 (2.9%) in the MCI+ group and 0.19 (8.0%) in the DEM+ group at follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 107 Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

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.

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

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 tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed