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 1–25 of 40 studies in Brain scans and imaging in Annals of Neurology (page 1 of 2) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 40 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.

(18)F-Flutemetamol performs similarly to the (11)C-PIB parent molecule within the same subjects and provides high test-retest replicability and potentially much wider accessibility for clinical and research use. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Imaging and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in early preclinical alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2016-07-25

CSF Aβ42 levels are tightly coupled with cortical amyloid load in the earliest stages of preclinical AD, and begin to decrease dramatically prior to the point when an abnormal threshold of cortical accumulation is detected with amyloid imaging. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 164 Evidence: moderate

Imaging brain amyloid in Alzheimer's disease with Pittsburgh Compound‐B

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Annals of Neurology 2004-01-21

This report describes the first human study of a novel amyloid-imaging positron emission tomography (PET) tracer, termed Pittsburgh Compound-B (PIB), in 16 patients with diagnosed mild AD and 9 controls. 3 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: low

CSF and amyloid PET measurements of Aβ were consistent in the majority of subjects in the cross-sectional and longitudinal populations. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 374 Evidence: moderate

ALPS-index may provide useful disease progression or treatment biomarkers for patients with AD as an indicator of modulation of glymphatic activity. 1 key finding →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

18 F-flortaucipir uptake was elevated in PSP versus controls and PD patients in a pattern consistent with the expected distribution of tau pathology. 3 key findings →

Participants: 33 Evidence: low

Parietal and occipital lobar CMBs counts were higher in PiB(+) ADCI with moderate WMH than PiB(+) ADCI with minimal WMH, whereas PiB(-) patients with SVCI (ie, "pure" SVCI) showed both lobar and deep CMBs. 3 key findings →

Participants: 226 Evidence: moderate

Visinin-like protein-1: diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2011-08-01

These findings suggest that CSF VILIP-1 and VILIP-1/Aβ42 offer diagnostic utility for early AD, and can predict future cognitive impairment in cognitively normal individuals similarly to tau and tau/Aβ42, respectively. 3 key findings →

Participants: 211 Evidence: moderate

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

Concluding, this innovative EEG analysis, in combination with a genetic test (both low-cost and widely available), could evaluate on an individual basis with great precision the risk of MCI progression. 3 key findings →

Participants: 97 Evidence: low

These findings support the idea that vascular amyloid burden directly contributes to chronic cerebral ischemia and highlights the possible utility of amyloid imaging as a marker of CAA severity. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognition, reserve, and amyloid deposition in normal aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2010-03-01

Amyloid deposition is associated with lower cognitive performance both in AD patients and in the normal elderly, but the association is modified by CR, suggesting that CR may be protective against amyloid-related cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Participants: 17 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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