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 51–75 of 111 studies in Brain scans and imaging · tagged Risk Factors (page 3 of 5) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 111 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.

Association between blood pressure, white matter lesions, and atrophy of the medial temporal lobe

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2005-01-01

Blood pressure and indicators of small-vessel disease in the brain may be associated with atrophy of structures affected by Alzheimer pathology. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In this cross-sectional study, we found an association between Aβ brain burden measured in vivo and DBP and cortisol, indicating a possible link between these CVRF and Aβ burden measured by PiB-PET. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Visceral fat is associated with lower brain volume in healthy middle-aged adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2010-08-01

In middle-aged community participants, we observed a significant inverse association of anthropometric and CT-based measurements of abdominal, especially visceral, fat with total brain volume. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Type 2 diabetic patients develop aberrant functional connectivity of the PCC, which is associated with insulin resistance in selected brain regions. 3 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

Abnormal regional cerebral blood flow in cognitively normal elderly subjects with hypertension

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Stroke 2008-01-03

Cognitively normal subjects with HTN (n=19) had decreased rCBF in the putamen, globus pallidus, bilaterally, and in the left hippocampus compared with normotensives (n=22). 1 key finding →

Participants: 19 Evidence: low

Intrinsic connectivity networks in posterior cortical atrophy: A role for the pulvinar?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. NeuroImage. Clinical 2018-12-03

Patients with PCA showed disproportionate deficits in the visuospatial domain; they also showed preserved social sensitivity and endorsed more depressive symptoms than HCs. 5 key findings →

Participants: 26 Evidence: low

Amyloid-beta and tau protein beyond Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Neural regeneration research 2023-10-02

The aggregation of amyloid-beta peptide and tau protein dysregulation are implicated to play key roles in Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis and are considered the main pathological hallmarks of this devastating disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

High dietary cholesterol and low dietary docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) intake are risk factors for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Silent brain infarct and white matter lesions are common radiological findings associated with the risk of clinical stroke and dementia; however, our understanding of their underlying pathophysiology and risk factors remains limited. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test (GOAT) was developed to evaluate cognition serially during the subacute stage of recovery from closed head injury. 1 key finding →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

The importance of early Alzheimer's Disease screening is becoming more apparent, given the fact that there is no way to revert the patient's status after the onset. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

After the authors controlled for demographic characteristics and dementia severity, both estimates of premorbid intellectual ability were inversely correlated with cerebral metabolism in the prefrontal, pre-motor, and left superior parietal association regions. 4 key findings →

Participants: 46 Evidence: low

Cholesterol and docosahexenoic acid (DHA) may affect degenerative processes in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) by influencing Abeta metabolism indirectly via the vasculature. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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    Where this research is being discussed: events