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 2,301–2,325 of 2,900 studies · tagged Brain Scans (page 93 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.

Using a unique dataset of the same participants scanned close in time on different scanner and protocols, we found that (1) MMD measurements were useful to test the need/improvement due to harmonization; (2) ComBat was not substantially better at creating compatible distributions between scanner vendors than Deming regression, and both were sometimes inadequate. 4 key findings →

Participants: 53 Evidence: low

We evaluated the brain metabolic correlates of main indexes of a widely used word list learning test, the Rey Auditory Verbal Memory Test (RAVLT), in a group of elderly subjects with memory complaints. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Each of these subtypes is associated with differential 18 F-FDG PET findings. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Single, severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) which elevates CNS amyloid, increases the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD); while repetitive concussive and subconcussive events as observed in athletes and military personnel, may increase the risk of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In vivo imaging of tau pathology using multi-parametric quantitative MRI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. NeuroImage 2015-02-17

As the number of people diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (AD) reaches epidemic proportions, there is an urgent need to develop effective treatment strategies to tackle the social and economic costs of this fatal condition. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

It has been shown that cognitive training (CogTr) is effective and recuperative for older adults, and can be used to fight against cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our purpose was to determine whether the neurochemistry of the primary motor cortex measured with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and its volume, were associated with gait performance while single and dual-tasking in mild cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Hippocampal volumes of subjects with a history of major depressive episodes but currently in remission and with no known medical comorbidity were compared to matched normal controls by using volumetric magnetic resonance images. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Childhood maltreatment or abuse is a major risk factor for mood, anxiety, substance abuse, psychotic, and personality disorders, and it is associated with reduced adult hippocampal volume, particularly on the left side. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

MRI hippocampal volumes and memory function before and after temporal lobectomy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Neurology 1993-09-01

We investigated the relationship between preoperative MRI hippocampal volumes and clinical neuropsychological memory test data obtained before and after temporal lobectomy and amygdalohippocampectomy for intractable epilepsy in 44 left (LTL) and 36 right (RTL) temporal lobectomy patients. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Exposure to elevated levels of PM2.5 was associated with smaller total cerebral brain volume, a marker of age-associated brain atrophy, and with higher odds of covert brain infarcts. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Correlates of hippocampal neuron number in Alzheimer's disease and ischemic vascular dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2005-06-01

The cornu ammonis 1 region of the hippocampus (CA1) sector of hippocampus is vulnerable to both Alzheimer's disease (AD)-type neurofibrillary degeneration and anoxia-ischemia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a common disorder associated with emotional dysregulation and other symptoms that have been hypothesized to be related to dysfunction of limbic brain areas including hippocampus and amygdala. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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