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 1,601–1,625 of 2,900 studies · tagged Brain Scans(page 65 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 47 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2009-01-01
These findings suggest that either microglial activation is limited to later stages of severe AD or [11C](R)-PK11195 is too insensitive to detect the level of microglial activation associated with mild to moderate AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2010-06-11
The aim of this study was to investigate the dynamics of four of the most validated biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD), cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF) Abeta 1-42, tau, hippocampal volume, and FDG-PET, in patients at different stage of AD. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·PloS one·2019-08-20
Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains a clinical diagnosis but biomarkers from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and more lately amyloid imaging with positron emission tomography (PET), are important to support a diagnosis of AD. 4 key findings →
This study was undertaken to compare the performance of plasma p-tau181 with that of [ 18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in the identification of early biological Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2013-04-30
We examined differences in cerebral blood flow (CBF) measured by Arterial Spin Labeled perfusion MRI (ASL MRI) across the continuum from cognitively normal (CN) older adults to mild Alzheimer's Disease (AD) using data from the multi-site Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 4 key findings →
The Centiloid method demonstrates strong intertracer and interscanner harmonization when standardized to the 11C-Pittsburgh compound B reference, with high correlation (r2 > 0.9) across 18F-labeled tracers, including florbetapir, flutemetamol, and florbetaben. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-07-02
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that significantly impacts cognitive function, posing a major global health challenge. 1 key finding →
Thirty-two patients met the inclusion criteria (n=11 moderate-to-severe SVD, mean age 72 ± 10 years, 6 women; n = 21 none-to-minimal SVD, mean age 70 ± 10 years, 12 women). 3 key findings →
This review covers recent advances (2023-2024) in neuroimaging research into the pathophysiology, progression, and treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD). 5 key findings →
We show reduced fiber cross-section in LBD versus PD, and increased concentrations of plasma neurofilament light chain and p-tau217; with p-tau217 and fiber cross-section associated with cognition. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Human Brain Mapping·2025-02-15
The analysis tools and statistical methods used in large neuroimaging research studies differ from those applied in clinical contexts, making it unclear whether these techniques can be translated to a memory clinic setting. 5 key findings →
Synucleinopathies, such as Parkinson's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and multiple system atrophy, are characterized by the aggregation of α-synuclein. 1 key finding →
This raises the suggestion that a decreased neurovascular coupling in the disease process of AD is related to comorbid small vessel disease. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Brain Communications·2026-01-01
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) exhibit distinct neuropathological hallmarks, with AD defined by cortical amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, while VaD arises primarily from cerebrovascular disease (CeVD). 4 key findings →
BPs of [(11)C](R)PK11195 and [(11)C]PIB were significantly higher in the parietotemporal regions of AD patients than in ten healthy controls. 3 key findings →
Florbetapir F 18 appears to have a wide effective dose range and a high test-retest reliability for both quantitative (SUVr) values and visual assessment of the ligand.
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.