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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 351–375 of 1,459 studies in Brain scans and imaging(page 15 of 59)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 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.
Elevated CSF p-tau181 and cortical 18F-PI-2620 binding was characteristic for AD while normal CSF p-tau181 with elevated subcortical 18F-PI-2620 binding was characteristic for 4RTs. 18F-PI-2620-assessed posterior cortical hypoperfusion could be used as an additional neuronal injury biomarker in AD. 5 key findings →
Brain amyloid deposition is one of the main hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and two approaches are available for assessing amyloid pathology in vivo: cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers levels and amyloid load visualized by amyloid beta positron emission tomography imaging (Amy-PET) probes. 1 key finding →
There is both clinical and neuroanatomical variability at the single-subject level in Alzheimer's disease, complicating our understanding of brain-behaviour relationships and making it challenging to develop neuroimaging biomarkers to track disease severity, progression, and response to treatment. 5 key findings →
Intergrader agreements for overall 3 × 3 mm image quality and quantitative assessment of VD and FAZ ranged between 71% and 87% (52 images). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Brain communications·2022-08-17
Previous studies have explored the associations of retinal vessel calibre, measured from retinal photographs or fundus images using semi-automated computer programs, with cognitive impairment and dementia, supporting the concept that retinal blood vessels reflect microvascular changes in the brain. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2024-07-09
This study investigates various pathological tau isoforms in the retina of individuals with early and advanced Alzheimer's disease (AD), exploring their connection with disease status. 5 key findings →
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 →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2008-09-01
Patterns of gray matter loss are associated with neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) pathology, specifically with NFT burden at Braak stages III and IV and with Braak stage itself at higher stages. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2000-03-01
Registration of serial MRI volume images provides a powerful method of quantification of brain atrophy that can be used to monitor progression of AD in clinical trials. 1 key finding →
The semantic and non-fluent/agrammatic variants are largely associated with frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP-43 and tau pathology, respectively. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2008-12-01
Medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) scores 1) distinguish probable Alzheimer disease (AD) and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subjects from nonamnestic MCI and no cognitive impairment (NCI) subjects, 2) help predict diagnosis at baseline, and 3) predict transition from NCI to MCI and from MCI to probable AD. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2011-12-21
This approach to the detection of individuals at high risk for preclinical AD-identified in single CN individuals using this quantitative ADsig MRI biomarker-may provide investigators with a population enriched for AD pathobiology and with a relatively high likelihood of imminent cognitive decline consistent with prodromal AD. 3 key findings →
The MRC Cognitive Function and Ageing Study (CFAS) is a prospective longitudinal study of a population-based cohort of elderly people in six UK sites, evaluated using psychometric instruments and questionnaires to elucidate physical and mental health. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-10-01
Medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) on postmortem MRI is sensitive to primary degenerative hippocampal pathology in the very old, but not specific for Alzheimer-type pathology. 5 key findings →
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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.