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 1,076–1,100 of 2,900 studies · tagged Brain Scans(page 44 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 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2008-01-01
A temporoparietal pattern of atrophy on MRI in patients with progressive fluent aphasia and relatively preserved processing speed is suggestive of underlying Alzheimer disease pathology rather than frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-only immunoreactive changes. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2012-02-23
We explored resting-state metabolic connectivity in prodromal Alzheimer's disease (pAD) patients and in healthy controls (CTR), through a voxel-wise interregional correlation analysis of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) by means of statistical parametric mapping. 1 key finding →
Florbetapir F18 has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for in vivo assessment of amyloid pathology in patients undergoing evaluation for Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2019-03-01
In this patient, the clinical disease symptoms progressed rapidly in life, paralleled with an annual increase of tau PET retention of 20% to 40% in many cortical regions. 3 key findings →
The presence of either severe WMH or MTA was associated with a modest but non-significant increase in frequency of mild cognitive deficits (severe WMH: odds ratio (OR) = 1.9 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0 to 3.7); MTA present: OR = 1.5 (95% CI, 0.8 to 2.8)). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Stroke·2016-04-07
The prevalence of ICAS in older adults is high, and it could be a target for primary prevention of stroke and dementia in this population. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·PloS one·2013-05-31
Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) based assessment of white matter fiber tract integrity can support the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2013-07-26
Computational anatomy with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is well established as a noninvasive biomarker of Alzheimer's disease (AD); however, there is less certainty about its dependency on the staging of AD. 4 key findings →
Although reduced hippocampal volumes are most pronounced in late-onset depression, older people with early-onset disorders also display volume changes and memory loss. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2007-11-01
Spatial patterns of brain atrophy in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) were measured via methods of computational neuroanatomy. 3 key findings →
Here, we review progress by the Penn Biomarker Core in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) toward developing a pathological cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma biomarker signature for mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) as well as a biomarker profile that predicts conversion of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or normal control subjects to AD. 2 key findings →
[(11)C]PIB scans were positive in 40 of 66 (61%) patients with a clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), 5 of 18 (28%) patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD), 4 of 5 (80%) patients with Lewy body dementia, and 3 of 10 (30%) patients with other dementias. [(18)F]FDG uptake patterns matched the clinical diagnosis in 38 of 66 (58%) of AD patients, and in 6 of 18 (33%) FTD patients. 4 key findings →
Older persons with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) feature neurobiological Alzheimer's Disease (AD) in 50% to 70% of the cases and develop dementia within the next 5 to 7 years. 2 key findings →
Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is driven by vascular Aβ (amyloid-beta) deposition, which can be detected as reduced Aβ species in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-01-28
This study investigated whether longitudinal changes in CSF AD biomarkers were associated with 18 F-MK6240 tau PET measures in early Braak stage subregions. 4 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.