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 NeuroImage (page 1 of 2) · 27,780 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.

In this study, researchers assessed the validity and reliability of an automated labeling system developed to subdivide the human cerebral cortex on magnetic resonance images into gyral based regions of interest. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Longitudinal ComBat: A method for harmonizing longitudinal multi-scanner imaging data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. NeuroImage 2020-07-05

While aggregation of neuroimaging datasets from multiple sites and scanners can yield increased statistical power, it also presents challenges due to systematic scanner effects. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 663 Evidence: moderate

The European Union AddNeuroMed program and the US-based Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) are two large multi-center initiatives designed to collect and validate biomarker data for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,074 Evidence: moderate

This study performed an anatomical parcellation of the MNI spatially normalized single-subject high-resolution T1 volume by delineating main sulci as landmarks to define 45 anatomical volumes of interest (AVOI) in each hemisphere. 4 key findings →

Associations of quantitative susceptibility mapping with Alzheimer's disease clinical and imaging markers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. NeuroImage 2020-10-06

Altered iron metabolism has been hypothesized to be associated with Alzheimer's disease pathology, and prior work has shown associations between iron load and beta amyloid plaques. 5 key findings →

Participants: 421 Evidence: low

Accurate automatic estimation of total intracranial volume: a nuisance variable with less nuisance

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. NeuroImage 2014-10-01

Total intracranial volume (TIV/ICV) is an important covariate for volumetric analyses of the brain and brain regions, especially in the study of neurodegenerative diseases, where it can provide a proxy of maximum pre-morbid brain volume. 3 key findings →

Participants: 288 Evidence: low

Simultaneously evaluating resting-state brain glucose metabolism and intrinsic functional activity has potential to impact the clinical neurosciences of Alzheimer Disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Magnetoencephalographic evaluation of resting-state functional connectivity in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. NeuroImage 2006-07-11

Statistical interdependencies between magnetoencephalographic signals recorded over different brain regions may reflect the functional connectivity of the resting-state networks. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Pragmatic algorithm for visual assessment of 4-Repeat tauopathies in [18F]PI-2620 PET Scans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. NeuroImage 2025-01-09

Patients with 4R-tauopathies in contrast to non-4R-tauopathies were detected at higher sensitivity in the 20-40-minute frame (common: 79%, scaled: 76%) compared to the 40-60-minute frame (common: 55%, scaled: 62%), albeit with reduced specificity in the common setting (20-40-min: 78%, 40-60-min: 95%), which was ameliorated in the intensity-scaled setting (20-40-min: 91%, 40-60-min: 96%). 5 key findings →

Participants: 29 Evidence: low

Disrupted modular brain dynamics reflect cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. NeuroImage 2011-11-30

The relation between pathology and cognitive dysfunction in dementia is still poorly understood, although disturbed communication between different brain regions is almost certainly involved. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recently, several high dimensional classification methods have been proposed to automatically discriminate between patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and elderly controls (CN) based on T1-weighted MRI. 4 key findings →

Participants: 509 Evidence: low

Functional MRI has recently been used to examine activation associated with aging and dementia, yet little is known regarding the effect of cerebral atrophy on fMRI signal. 5 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: low

Functional implications of hippocampal volume and diffusivity in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. NeuroImage 2005-08-03

Hippocampal atrophy has been related to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early Alzheimer disease (AD), but the diagnostic significance of cross-sectionally determined hippocampal volumes is still ambiguous. 5 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. 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