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 1,551–1,575 of 2,900 studies · tagged Brain Scans(page 63 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.
Previous work indicates that resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is sensitive to functional brain changes related to Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology across the clinical spectrum. 3 key findings →
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s recent accelerated approval of two anti-amyloid antibodies for treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), aducanumab and lecanemab, has caused substantial debate. 2 key findings →
We included 110 patients with CAA (strictly lobar ICHs/CMBs), 33 with HA (strictly deep ICHs/CMBs) and 97 with mixed lobar/deep ICHs/CMBs. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·NeuroImage Clinical·2019-01-01
According to the network model of neurodegeneration, the spread of pathogenic proteins occurs selectively along connected brain regions. 2 key findings →
Neuropathological studies have shown that the typical neurofibrillary pathology of hyperphosphorylated tau protein in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) preferentially affects specific brain regions whereas others remain relatively spared. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·1996-03-01
Hippocampal atrophy detected by volumetric MRI is a sensitive feature of early Alzheimer's disease (AD), but there are no studies evaluating hippocampal atrophy by MR volumetry in other dementing diseases. 2 key findings →
Our findings indicate that GFAP is of potential clinical utility in screening amyloid pathology and predicting future cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Lobar distribution of cerebral microbleeds is associated with Alzheimer's disease and the number of lobar cerebral microbleeds directly correlates with cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-beta and phosphorylated tau 181 protein levels and with the cognitive decline of Alzheimer's disease patients. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurology·2011-02-16
Hippocampal atrophy and amyloid deposition seem to dissociate during the evolution of MCI, the atrophy increasing clearly and [(11)C] PiB retention changing modestly when conversion to AD occurs. 4 key findings →
The results for both (11)C-PiB and (18)F-NAV4694 can now be expressed in centiloids, an important step that should allow better clinical and research use of Aβ imaging. 3 key findings →
Amyloid PET imaging is a novel diagnostic test that can detect in living humans one of the two defining pathologic lesions of Alzheimer disease, amyloid-β deposition in the brain. 3 key findings →
Although clinical routine focuses on dichotomous and visual interpretation of amyloid PET, regional image assessment in research settings may yield additional opportunities. 5 key findings →
The progressive decrement of neuropsychological performance is associated with HVL long before the emergence of clinically overt symptoms. 4 key findings →
Our findings suggest AD-type tau is not higher in LLD compared to non-depressed, cognitively unimpaired older adults and appears unlikely to contribute to lower gray matter volume in LLD, further underscoring the need to distinguish major depressive disorder from depressive symptoms occurring in early AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurology·2021-11-03
Reproductive history events signaling more estrogen exposure such as premenopausal status, longer reproductive span, higher number of children, and use of HT and HC were associated with larger GMV in women in midlife. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Radiology·2011-01-19
LSN analysis revealed that interconnectivity patterns of brain regions can be used to classify subjects with AD, those with aMCI, and CN subjects. 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.