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 1,676–1,700 of 2,900 studies · tagged Brain Scans(page 68 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.·Annals of neurology·2000-01-01
To evaluate the utility of arterial spin-labeled blood flow magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of cerebral blood flow abnormalities in Alzheimer's disease, arterial spin-labeled blood flow images in 16 contiguous 5-mm axial sections were acquired in 18 patients diagnosed with probable Alzheimer's disease and 11 age-matched controls. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease research has largely concentrated on the study of cognitive decline, but the associated behavioural and neuropsychiatric symptoms are of equal importance in the clinical profile of the disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Brain·2015-07-23
These same brain areas were then assessed in a cohort of patients with Alzheimer’s disease versus a healthy older reference group, using a region of interest approach combined with standard structural (MRI), metabolic (fluorodeoxyglucose-PET) and amyloid ligand (florbetapir-PET) neuroimaging. 5 key findings →
Plasma p-tau181 and Centiloid scale alone or in combination with other biomarkers, might predict future cognitive stage transition in non-dementia patients. 2 key findings →
On achieving conformance, sites can justify a claim that brain amyloid burden reflected by the SUVR is measurable to a within-subject coefficient of variation of no more than 1.94% when the same radiopharmaceutical, scanner, acquisition, and analysis protocols are used. 2 key findings →
Compared with non-PVE-corrected data, PVE-corrected data yielded significantly higher changes in regional and composite SUV ratio (SUVR) over time ( P = 0.0002 for composite SUVRs). 4 key findings →
This study found that in preclinical AD, overweight and obesity were associated with better verbal memory in women, whereas obesity was associated with worse global cognition among men. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-04-01
These results indicate that the epsilon4-positive APOE genotype not only represents a risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), but also results in higher levels of Abeta plaque deposition in epsilon4-positive patients with AD compared to age-matched epsilon4-negative patients with similar levels of cognitive impairment and brain atrophy. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Journal of stroke·2015-01-30
Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) involves cerebrovascular amyloid deposition and is classified into several types according to the amyloid protein involved. 1 key finding →
SUVR at 60-90 min after injection gave robust quantitation of (18)F-GE180, which correlated well with distribution volume ratios calculated from the entire recording and using a white matter reference region. 2 key findings →
ANOVA revealed significant group differences in lateral ventricular SUVR across the Alzheimer, mild cognitive impairment, and healthy control groups ( P = 0.004). 5 key findings →
Object The authors describe the first clinical trial with encapsulated cell biodelivery (ECB) implants that deliver nerve growth factor (NGF) to the cholinergic basal forebrain with the intention of halting the degeneration of cholinergic neurons and the associated cognitive decline in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Light-to-moderate alcohol intake is associated with a lower prevalence of vascular brain findings and, in APOE epsilon4 carriers, hippocampal and amygdalar atrophy on MRI. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Radiology·2012-02-27
PRD was associated with selective disruption of corticostriatal resting functional MR imaging correlations, which suggests that resting functional MR imaging analyzed in subject-native space may be a useful biomarker in this disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1997-02-01
Hereditary frontotemporal dementia (HFTD) is a rare autosomal dominant form of presenile dementia characterized by behavioral changes and reduced speech. 2 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.