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 1,301–1,325 of 2,900 studies · tagged Brain Scans (page 53 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.

Positron emission tomography (PET) with 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) reveals altered cerebral metabolism in individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's dementia (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 332 Evidence: low

Baseline tau-PET and a composite baseline cognitive score were the strongest independent predictors of cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mid-life obesity is an established risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, whereas late-life obesity has been proposed as a protective state. 4 key findings →

Participants: 162 Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) marks a transitional stage between healthy aging and dementia, but the understanding of MCI in the general population remains limited. 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,198 Evidence: low

Hippocampal volume shrinks in late adulthood, but the neuromolecular factors that trigger hippocampal decay in aging humans remains a matter of speculation. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The characteristics of the cohort revealed significant groupwise differences in age, education, sex, and cognitive diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

A significant ADI × dementia interaction was observed for global atrophy (p = .005) and several other outcomes. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate

Lecanemab reduced clinical decline by roughly 27% over placebo, with ARIA-E in 12.6% of treated patients;donanemab slowed decline by about 35%, with ARIA-E near 24%. 4 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

Higher BAG (pDeepBrainNet = 0.0002; pBrainAgeR = 0.00117) and lower hippocampal volume (p = 0.0015) and cortical thickness (p < 0.0001) were associated with worse clinical status (higher CDR). 2 key findings →

Participants: 2,870 Evidence: low

Superficial white matter (SWM), containing short-range association connections beneath the cortex, has been affected in mild cognitive impairment and AD, with gaps in understanding the disease's early stages. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Clinical stages showed a progressively increased prevalence of Aβ-positivity and higher entorhinal tau PET pathology from cognitively normal (CN) to SOCD, MCI, and dementia in both tracers. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 446 Evidence: moderate

The AI-powered pipeline achieved robust performance with intraclass correlation coefficients exceeding 0.97 for regional uptake estimation compared with MR-based ground truth. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 666 Evidence: moderate

This study developed machine learning models to predict Aβ positivity in Alzheimer’s disease by integrating early-phase 18 F-Florbetaben PET and clinical data to improve diagnostic accuracy. 2 key findings →

Participants: 176 Evidence: low

15 years of longitudinal genetic, clinical, cognitive, imaging, and biochemical measures in DIAN

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. npj Dementia 2026-02-16

The Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Observational Study (DIAN Obs) is a longitudinal, global cohort study investigating brain aging and autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease (ADAD), a rare monogenic form of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Physical and Cognitive Activities and Trajectories of AD Neuroimaging Biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2025-12-02

= 0.038) over time. Physical activity was associated with less synaptic dysfunction and cognitive activity with less synaptic dysfunction and lower amyloid burden over time, albeit effect sizes were small. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Impact of regional white matter hyperintensity patterns on cognitive trajectories in NACC

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-10-01

Five WMH clusters emerged. Compared to those with low WMH burden, participants in the mild occipital and high parieto-occipital clusters had faster memory decline; mild fronto-parietal and high parieto-occipital clusters showed faster executive decline; and mild and high fronto-parietal and high parieto-occipital clusters had faster language decline. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,047 Evidence: moderate

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and major depressive disorder (MDD) are reciprocal risk factors, and both elevate dementia risk. 4 key findings →

Participants: 15,765 Evidence: low

= 0.025) over 3 years. NfL was not significantly associated with any MRI cSVD marker. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has shown a great reduction in medial temporal lobe and hippocampal volume of patients with Alzheimer's disease as compared to controls.

Our findings lend support to a model in which fibrillar Aβ is still accumulating in the early stages of clinical disease but approaching a relative plateau, a point at which Aβ may uncouple from neurodegenerative processes including synaptic loss. 5 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

Widespread cortical reduction of synaptic density was documented in a cohort of DLB/PDD subjects using in vivo [11C]UCB-J PET. 5 key findings →

Participants: 21 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