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
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 176–200 of 271 studies scoring ≥ 67 out of 100 · tagged Brain Scans(page 8 of 11)· 30,580 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 16,054 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.
ADNI has demonstrated the feasibility and utility of multicenter PET studies and is helping to clarify the role of biomarkers in the study of aging and dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2021-10-01
For early detection of Alzheimer's disease, it is important to find biomarkers with predictive value for disease progression and clinical manifestations, such as cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2023-10-01
An increased tau positron emission tomography (PET) signal in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) has been observed in older individuals in the absence of amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology. 4 key findings →
¹⁸F-FDFG uptake by brain tissue as measured by positron emission tomography (PET) is a well-established method for assessment of brain function in people with dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2017-07-10
Of all studies included in this systematic review, results from the highest quality studies, which were two randomized controlled trials, demonstrated that multi-domain CCT could lead to increases in hippocampal functional connectivity. 5 key findings →
SEE MCKAY AND FURL DOI101093/AWW323 FOR A SCIENTIFIC COMMENTARY ON THIS ARTICLE: Focal brain injury can sometimes lead to bizarre symptoms, such as the delusion that a family member has been replaced by an imposter (Capgras syndrome). 3 key findings →
These results indicate that in both healthy subjects and patients with schizophrenia hippocampal volume is plastic in response to aerobic exercise. 3 key findings →
In this study involving Chinese participants during the 20 years preceding clinical diagnosis of sporadic Alzheimer's disease, we observed the time courses of CSF biomarkers, the times before diagnosis at which they diverged from the biomarkers from a matched group of participants who remained cognitively normal, and the temporal order in which the biomarkers became abnormal. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2020-01-03
This study found that the prevalence of maternal psychological distress in healthy, well-educated, and employed pregnant women was high, underappreciated, and associated with impaired fetal brain biochemistry and hippocampal growth as well as accelerated cortical folding. 5 key findings →
The objective of this study was to examine exercise effects on global brain volume, hippocampal volume, and cortical thickness in schizophrenia patients and healthy controls. 2 key findings →
Plasma p-tau217 may capture earlier Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related cognitive and brain atrophy hallmarks in females compared to males, possibly reflective of increased susceptibility to AD pathophysiology. 2 key findings →
Amyloid chronicity provides unique information about cognitive decline and neurofibrillary tangle development and may be useful to investigate preclinical Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Low physical activity is associated with a higher risk for dementia in older individuals, suggesting that a reduced risk of dementia and higher brain volumes may be additional health benefits of maintaining physical activity into old age. 5 key findings →
An emerging body of evidence has raised concern regarding the potentially harmful effects of inhaled pollutants on the central nervous system during the last decade. 2 key findings →
Primary include several amyloid PET measurements (Centiloid, SUVr, BPND , R1 ), and secondary are their changes from baseline, relationship to other amyloid markers (cerebrospinal fluid and visual assessment), and predictive value of AD-related decline. 2 key findings →
The TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 6 study (NCT05738486) evaluated the effect of different donanemab dosing regimens on amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema/sulcal effusions (ARIA-E). 5 key findings →
In TAP-TAU, we will investigate the added clinical value of tau-PET in a real-world clinical setting, including memory clinic patients with diagnostic uncertainty after routine work-up. 2 key findings →
In Alzheimer's disease (AD) research, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Amyloid beta (Aβ), Tau and pTau are the most accepted and well validated biomarkers. 3 key findings →
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%),
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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.