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 351–375 of 844 studies (page 15 of 34) · 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)

Showing 844 studies tagged imaging — clear

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.

Amyloidosis in the absence of neurodegeneration did not have an adverse impact on practice effects or the 30-month cognitive trajectories. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major neurodegenerative disease and the most common cause of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The final algorithm demonstrated an AUROC of 0.88, sensitivity of 77.7%, and a specificity of 79.9% on excluded test data. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A gradient boosted machine (GBM) predicted the presence of AD as a function of gender, age, education, socioeconomic status (SES), and a mini-mental state exam (MMSE). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Optical Coherence Tomography in Alzheimer's Disease and Other Neurodegenerative Diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Frontiers in neurology 2017-12-19

Over the past decade, a surge of evidence has documented various pathological processes in the retina of patients suffering from mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and other neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

MRI and CSF studies in the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Journal of internal medicine 2004-09-01

In cross-section and longitudinally, our results show that evaluations of the P-tau231 level are highly correlated with reductions in the MRI hippocampal volume and by using CSF and MRI measures together one improves the separation of NL and MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Mapping distributed sources of cortical rhythms in mild Alzheimer's disease. A multicentric EEG study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. NeuroImage 2004-05-01

The study aimed at mapping (i) the distributed electroencephalographic (EEG) sources specific for mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) compared to vascular dementia (VaD) or normal elderly people (Nold) and (ii) the distributed EEG sources sensitive to the mild AD at different stages of severity. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Brain imaging with diffusion-weighted MRI (dMRI) is sensitive to microstructural white matter (WM) changes associated with brain aging and neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Participants: 317 Evidence: low

This paper presents a brain T1-weighted structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarker that combines several individual MRI biomarkers (cortical thickness measurements, volumetric measurements, hippocampal shape, and hippocampal texture). 4 key findings →

Participants: 29 Evidence: low

Confirmatory factor analysis of the ADNI Neuropsychological Battery

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Brain imaging and behavior 2012-12-01

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is a large multi-center study designed to develop optimized methods for acquiring longitudinal neuroimaging, cognitive, and biomarker measures of AD progression in a large cohort of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment, and healthy controls. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The present study investigated the ability of the Multilingual Naming Test (MINT), a picture naming test recently added to the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center's (NACC) Uniform Data Set neuropsychological test battery, to detect naming impairment (i.e., dysnomia) across stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,981 Evidence: low

In recent years, several high-dimensional, accurate, and effective classification methods have been proposed for the automatic discrimination of the subject between Alzheimer's disease (AD) or its prodromal phase {i.e., mild cognitive impairment (MCI)} and healthy control (HC) persons based on T1-weighted structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI). 4 key findings →

Participants: 326 Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) is associated with an increase in the brain of the 18-kDa translocator protein (TSPO), which is overexpressed in activated microglia and reactive astrocytes. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This special issue of Alzheimer's & Dementia celebrates the accomplishments of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) project as it approaches its 20th anniversary in 2024, supported by funding from the National Institute on Aging. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

10 of the 840 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