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 103 studies in Brain scans and imaging of type cross-sectional study (page 3 of 5) · 29,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 103 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.

Our data suggest that interactions between biomarkers in AD result in a 2-phase phenomenon of pathological cortical thickening associated with low CSF Aβ, followed by atrophy once CSF p-tau becomes abnormal. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 145 Evidence: low

PERSI showed superior test-retest reproducibility (1.84%) and group separation ability (cross-sectional Cohen d = 9.45; longitudinal Cohen d = 2.34) compared with other reference regions. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 215 Evidence: moderate

The advent of PET ligands that bind tau pathology has enabled the quantification and visualization of tau pathology in aging and in Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Most patients with svMCI do not exhibit substantial amyloid burden, and CVD does not increase β-amyloid burden as measured by amyloid imaging. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 95 Evidence: low

Amyloid and tau imaging biomarkers explain cognitive decline from late middle-age

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2020-01-01

This study investigated differences in retrospective cognitive trajectories between amyloid and tau PET biomarker stratified groups in initially cognitively unimpaired participants sampled from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

This is the first human study to demonstrate that insulin resistance may contribute to amyloid deposition in brain regions affected by AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 186 Evidence: low

Do nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs decrease the risk for Alzheimer's disease? The Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 1995-08-01

Based on reports that the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may reduce the risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD), we studied the cross-sectional relation between NSAID use and the risk for AD in a population-based study of disease and disability in older people. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 365 Evidence: low

Subjective cognitive decline (SCD), as expressed by older adults, is associated with negative affect, which, in turn, is a likely risk factor for Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 51 Evidence: low

Measures of tau PET are strongly related to gray matter atrophy and likely mediate relationships between Aβ and gray matter. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

We examined the relationship between in vivo estimates of tau deposition as measured by 18 F-AV-1451 tau positron emission tomography imaging and cross-sectional cortical thickness, as well as rates of antecedent cortical thinning measured from magnetic resonance imaging in individuals with and without evidence of cerebral amyloid in 63 participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative study, including 32 cognitively normal individuals (mean age 74 years), 27 patients with mild cognitive impairment (mean age 76.8 years), and 4 patients diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (mean age 80 years). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 63 Evidence: moderate

Apraxia of speech is a motor speech disorder characterized by combinations of slow speaking rate, abnormal prosody, distorted sound substitutions, and trial-and-error articulatory movements. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 14 Evidence: low

Differential FTP-PET signal patterns showed significant negative associations with domain-specific annual rates of decline. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

The SVCI group showed lower CD in the temporal quadrant of the RPC network compared to the CN group (mean (SD), 42.34 (6.29) vs 48.45 (7.08); p = 0.001). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 69 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

Greater intra-group heterogeneity in ATN abnormality patterns was observed in more severe clinical stages of AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 665 Evidence: low

Power analyses for voxels showing maximal decline over the 1-year period in regional cerebral glucose metabolism (mg/100 g per minute) were computed to estimate the sample sizes needed to detect a significant treatment response in a 1-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment study. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate

Our results are consistent with the sequence of biological changes in ADAD implied by cross-sectional studies and highlight the importance of EC tau as an early biomarker and a potential link between Aβ burden and neocortical tau accumulation in ADAD. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

In both cohorts, CSF MTBR-tau243 was associated with tau-PET temporal meta-ROI burden (BioFINDER-2: β = 1.1, p = < 0.0001 and Knight-ADRC: β = 0.7, p = < 0.0001), and this association did not differ by sex (BioFINDER-2 β = 0.04, p = 0.6 and Knight-ADRC: β = 0.009, p = 0.9). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 446 Evidence: low

Subjects without amyloid, including three with pathologically confirmed corticobasal degeneration, showed greater regional 18F-AV-1451 retention and associated regional atrophy in areas commonly associated with corticobasal degeneration pathology than healthy control subjects [retention was higher compared to healthy controls (P = 0.0011), driven especially by the precentral gyrus (P = 0.011) and pallidum (P < 0.0001), and greater atrophy was seen in subjects compared to control subjects (P = 0.0004)]. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.

1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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