alzhub.org
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.

Research

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 51–75 of 456 studies in Brain scans and imaging · free to read (page 3 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.

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,658 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Resting bold fMRI differentiates dementia with Lewy bodies vs Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2011-04-27

Changes in functional connectivity in DLB indicate patterns of activation that are distinct from those seen in AD and may improve discrimination of DLB from AD and cognitively normal individuals. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 88 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Contribution of TDP and hippocampal sclerosis to hippocampal volume loss in older-old persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2019-11-22

Both AD and TDP/HS contribute to hippocampal volume loss in older-old persons, with TDP/HS more strongly associated with hippocampal volume than AD in Alzheimer dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 232 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Reduced lean mass in early Alzheimer disease and its association with brain atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-04-01

Lean mass was reduced in persons with early AD compared with controls without dementia (F = 7.73; P = .006) after controlling for sex. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

MRI and CSF biomarkers in normal, MCI, and AD subjects: predicting future clinical change

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2009-07-01

MRI and CSF provide complimentary predictive information about time to conversion from amnestic mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease and combination of the 2 provides better prediction than either source alone. 3 key findings →

Participants: 399 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Multimarker Cerebral Small Vessel Disease Score and Risk of Incident Dementia in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2025-09-15

-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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Longitudinal change in CSF biomarkers in autosomal-dominant Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Science translational medicine 2014-03-01

Clinicopathological evidence suggests that the pathology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) begins many years before the appearance of cognitive symptoms. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

MRI and CSF biomarkers in normal, MCI, and AD subjects: diagnostic discrimination and cognitive correlations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2009-07-01

We found no significant correlation between CSF biomarkers and cognitive scores in any of the 3 clinical groups individually. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 399 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Physical activity attenuates age-related biomarker alterations in preclinical AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2014-10-08

In a middle-aged, at-risk cohort, a physically active lifestyle is associated with an attenuation of the deleterious influence of age on key biomarkers of AD pathophysiology. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 186 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association Between Amyloid and Tau Accumulation in Young Adults With Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2018-05-01

Compared with noncarriers, cognitively unimpaired mutation carriers had elevated mean cortical Pittsburgh Compound B distribution volume ratio levels in their late 20s, and 7 of 9 carriers older than 30 years reached the threshold for amyloidosis (distribution volume ratio level > 1.2). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 24 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Vascular burden and Alzheimer disease pathologic progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2012-09-12

Increased WMHs are associated with aging, decreased glucose metabolism, and decline in executive function but do not affect AD-specific pathologic progression, suggesting that the vascular contribution to dementia is probably additive although not necessarily independent of the amyloid pathway. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association of Microglial Activation With Spontaneous ARIA-E and CSF Levels of Anti-Aβ Autoantibodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2022-08-08

ARIA-E can also occur spontaneously in cerebral amyloid angiopathy-related inflammation (CAA-ri), a rare autoimmune encephalopathy associated with increased CSF levels of anti-Aβ autoantibodies. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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