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 1–25 of 58 studies in Brain scans and imaging · tagged Risk Factors (page 1 of 3) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 58 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.

What “Brain scans and imaging” covers

Brain scans and imaging — MRI, PET and other scans: what they show, how early, and how reliably.

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.

General baseline characteristics of the study population were mean (standard deviation) age, 58.1 (8.8) years; 47% women. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,087 Evidence: high

Mechanisms of lower oesophageal sphincter incompetence in patients with symptomatic gastrooesophageal reflux

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 84 out of 100. Gut 1988-08-01

Visually impaired individuals were more likely to develop incident dementia, with a progressively greater risk among those with worse visual acuity. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 117,187 Evidence: high

Diabetes in Older Adults: A Consensus Report

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 81 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2012-10-25

More than 25% of the U.S. population aged ≥ 65 years has diabetes mellitus (hereafter referred to as diabetes),1 and the aging of the overall population is a significant driver of the diabetes epidemic. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high

Prospective study of alcohol consumption and risk of dementia in older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA 2003-03-01

Compared with abstention, consumption of 1 to 6 drinks weekly is associated with a lower risk of incident dementia among older adults. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,888 Evidence: moderate

In this study, lower AD signature region volumes, brain microhemorrhages, higher WMH volumes, and infarcts were risk factors associated with dementia in older community-based residents. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,553 Evidence: moderate

We tested whether dysregulation of cholesterol catabolism, through its conversion to primary bile acids (BAs), was associated with dementia pathogenesis. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 141 Evidence: moderate

More-severe diabetes (defined by higher HbA 1c and longer disease duration) but not prediabetes or less-severe diabetes was associated with smaller brain volumes and an increased burden of brain vascular pathology. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,713 Evidence: low

Patients with AD have altered microvascular network in the retina (narrower retinal venules and a sparser and more tortuous retinal vessels) compared with matched nondemented controls. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 136 Evidence: moderate

High WMH was a predictor of progression from normal to MCI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-8.17; P= .01) but not conversion from MCI to all-cause dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 67 Evidence: moderate

-statistics 0.82-0.83). We found a significant association between all-cause dementia and multimarker CSVD scores, which was independent of the FSRP as well as its individual components. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,152 Evidence: moderate

Hypertension is one of the main risk factors for vascular dementia and Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 37 Evidence: moderate

Deep-learning retinal vessel calibre measurements and risk of cognitive decline and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Brain communications 2022-08-17

Previous studies have explored the associations of retinal vessel calibre, measured from retinal photographs or fundus images using semi-automated computer programs, with cognitive impairment and dementia, supporting the concept that retinal blood vessels reflect microvascular changes in the brain. 3 key findings →

Participants: 212 Evidence: low

Whereas traumatic brain injury (TBI) results in widespread disruption of neural networks, changes in regional resting-state functional connectivity patterns after insult remain unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 13 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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