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 601–625 of 2,900 studies · tagged Brain Scans (page 25 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.

In our study, TSH was related neither to risk of AD nor with early MRI markers thereof, arguing against an important role of thyroid function in the development of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,025 Evidence: moderate

Three women (aged 61, 72, and 73 years) consecutively enrolled in the trial successfully completed repeated focused ultrasound-induced BBB opening of the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

White matter hyperintensities: relationship to amyloid and tau burden

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2019-08-01

Although white matter hyperintensities have traditionally been viewed as a marker of vascular disease, recent pathology studies have found an association between white matter hyperintensities and Alzheimer's disease pathologies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 434 Evidence: low

To design clinical trials for the frontotemporal lobar degenerations (FTLD), knowledge about measurement of disease progression is needed to estimate power and enable the choice of optimal outcome measures. 2 key findings →

Participants: 107 Evidence: low

SEE THAL AND VANDENBERGHE DOI101093/BRAIN/AWW057 FOR A SCIENTIFIC COMMENTARY ON THIS ARTICLE: Post-mortem Braak staging of neurofibrillary tau tangle topographical distribution is one of the core neuropathological criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

Cerebrospinal fluid and positron emission tomography amyloid-β were measured at baseline in 769 persons [161 healthy controls, 68 subjective memory complaints, 419 mild cognitive impairment and 121 Alzheimer's disease dementia, mean age 72 years (standard deviation 7 years), 47% females] and used to predict diagnosis, APOE ε4 carriage status, cerebral blood flow, cerebrospinal fluid total-tau and phosphorylated-tau levels (cross-sectionally); and hippocampal volume, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography results and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale scores (longitudinally). 2 key findings →

Participants: 769 Evidence: low

Predicting future clinical changes of MCI patients using longitudinal and multimodal biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. PloS one 2012-03-22

Accurate prediction of clinical changes of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients, including both qualitative change (i.e., conversion to Alzheimer's disease (AD)) and quantitative change (i.e., cognitive scores) at future time points, is important for early diagnosis of AD and for monitoring the disease progression. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Physical and cognitive exercise may prevent or delay dementia in later life but the neural mechanisms underlying these therapeutic benefits are largely unknown. 3 key findings →

Participants: 100 Evidence: low

The sensitivity of MRI volumetric measures to detect cognitive dysfunction is examined in 39 participants of an epidemiological field study (age 75-85, MMSE 19-30). 4 key findings →

Participants: 39 Evidence: low

The gap between predicted brain age using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and chronological age may serve as a biomarker for early-stage neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Apolipoprotein (APOE) e4 genotype is an accepted risk factor for accelerated cognitive aging and dementia, though its neurostructural substrates are unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 8,395 Evidence: moderate

Total tau protein (T-Tau) and neurofilament light chain (NfL) have emerged as candidate plasma biomarkers of neurodegeneration, but studies have not compared how these biomarkers cross-sectionally or longitudinally associate with cognitive and neuroimaging measures. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 995 Evidence: moderate

We analyzed data from 462 ADNI participants without dementia who underwent Aβ ([ 18 F]florbetapir or [ 18 F]florbetaben) and tau ([ 18 F]flortaucipir) PET, structural MRI, and cognitive testing. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 156 Evidence: moderate

18F-MK-6240 PET for early and late detection of neurofibrillary tangles

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2020-09-01

Braak stages of tau neurofibrillary tangle accumulation have been incorporated in the criteria for the neuropathological diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 301 Evidence: low

's ≥ 0.75). Both markers identified Braak stage V-VI levels with similarly high performance (entorhinal SUVR, area under the curve [AUC] = 0.92 [95% CI 0.91-0.93]; temporal meta-ROI SUVR, AUC = 0.91 [95% CI 0.90-0.92]; plasma p-tau217, AUC = 0.90 [95% CI 0.89-0.91]), but PET outperformed plasma p-tau217 in identifying high/intermediate ADNCs (entorhinal ROI, AUC = 0.94 [95% CI 0.94-0.95]; temporal meta-ROI AUC = 0.94 [95% CI 0.94-0.95]; plasma p-tau217, AUC = 0.89 [95% CI 0.88-0.90]). 2 key findings →

Participants: 56 Evidence: moderate

The discovery cohort contained 3,671 individuals with a mean age of 68 years and consisted of 49% reported female. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,671 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