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 301–325 of 456 studies in Brain scans and imaging · free to read (page 13 of 19) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 456 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.

LSN analysis revealed that interconnectivity patterns of brain regions can be used to classify subjects with AD, those with aMCI, and CN subjects. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Although amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary pathology play important roles in Alzheimer disease (AD), our understanding of AD is incomplete, and the contribution of microglia and iron to neurodegeneration is unknown. 1 key finding →

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

The present study indicated that most individuals with the comorbidity of epilepsy and dementia have complex partial seizures that may be adequately controlled on AED therapy. 4 key findings →

Participants: 63 Evidence: low

We report kinetic modeling results of dynamic acquisition data from 0 to 100 min after injection with the tau PET tracer 18 F-AV-1451 in 19 subjects. 2 key findings →

Participants: 19 Evidence: low

Prior MR imaging studies, primarily at 1.5T, established hippocampal atrophy as a biomarker for Alzheimer disease. 3T MR imaging offers a higher contrast and signal-to-noise ratio, yet distortions and intensity uniformity are harder to control. 4 key findings →

Participants: 166 Evidence: low

In this work we use a large scale regularization approach based on penalized logistic regression to automatically classify structural MRI images (sMRI) according to cognitive status. 3 key findings →

Participants: 98 Evidence: low

ReIU: an efficient preliminary framework for Alzheimer patients based on multi-model data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Frontiers in Public Health 2025-01-03

The rising incidence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) poses significant challenges to traditional diagnostic methods, which primarily rely on neuropsychological assessments and brain MRIs. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

A novel neuroimaging based early detection framework for alzheimer disease using deep learning

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Scientific Reports 2025-07-02

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that significantly impacts cognitive function, posing a major global health challenge. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Thirty-two patients met the inclusion criteria (n=11 moderate-to-severe SVD, mean age 72 ± 10 years, 6 women; n = 21 none-to-minimal SVD, mean age 70 ± 10 years, 12 women). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Development and Validation of a 18 F-Flortaucipir PET Visual Stratification Method

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2025-03-13

The median PPA and NPA were 83.4% and 88.9%, respectively, with lower bounds of 2-sided 95% CIs being 50% or greater for all readers. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 140 Evidence: low

(18)F-THK5351 is a useful PET tracer for the early detection of neurofibrillary pathology in AD patients. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

Our data suggest that genetically-modified NSCs could provide a powerful combinatorial approach to not only enhance synaptic plasticity but to also target and modify underlying Alzheimer's disease pathology. 2 key findings →

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.

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