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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 576–600 of 1,459 studies in Brain scans and imaging(page 24 of 59)· 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)
From OpenAlex; 13,259 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2010-01-01
[(11)C]-Pittsburgh Compound B (PIB) PET is specific for fibrillar Abeta molecular pathology but not for pathologic diagnosis of comorbid Alzheimer disease in individuals with Parkinson disease dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2005-07-01
This potential benefit must be balanced against the possibility that ventricular volumes may be more likely to be affected by factors other than neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →
Anxiety symptoms in aMCI predict conversion to AD, over and beyond the effects of depression, memory loss, or atrophy within AD neuroimaging biomarkers. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-08-01
We found that despite a similar severity of dementia, patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) had more cortical atrophy than patients with Parkinson disease with dementia (PDD), indicating different brain substrates underlying dementia in the two syndromes. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Diabetes care·2014-03-21
Type 2 diabetic patients develop aberrant functional connectivity of the PCC, which is associated with insulin resistance in selected brain regions. 3 key findings →
We report the clinical, neuroimaging, and neuropathologic characteristics of 2 patients who developed early onset dementia after a moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). 3 key findings →
The results suggest that (11)C-PIB binding to Aβ deposits in transgenic mouse brain is highly dependent on the AD model and the structure of its Aβ plaques. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2019-03-13
Interest in understanding the roles of white matter (WM) inflammation and damage in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer disease (AD) has been growing significantly in recent years. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Molecular Psychiatry·2026-03-05
Collectively, these findings suggest that Aβ promotes gut symptoms through alteration of ENS connectivity and butyrate counteracts these impairments with an amelioration of neuroinflammation and memory function in AD model. 1 key finding →
O]water PET were strongest for 1800 msec single-PLD and generally decreased with longer PLDs, except the occipital lobe, where all PLDs showed poor agreement. 5 key findings →
Researchers evaluated twenty-one patients diagnosed with MCI using PET studies with (11)C-PIB and (18)F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG), cognitive assessments, and CSF sampling. 3 key findings →
[18F]flutemetamol PET scans were positive in 133 out of 211 (63%) patients, of whom 110 out of 144 (76%) patients had a pre-PET Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis and 23 out of 67 (34%) patients had a non-AD diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease is characterized both by a lower mean level of functional connectivity as well as by diminished fluctuations in the level of synchronization. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2012-02-01
Our findings show that the presence of Aβ in the brain, known to occur in about one-third of asymptomatic elderly individuals, is actually a pathologic state associated with accelerated atrophy. 4 key findings →
Magnetic resonance imaging-based volumetric measurements provide a useful technique for quantifying in vivo regional cerebral atrophy in Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Stroke·2005-09-22
The new MRI rating scale for WMH in cholinergic pathways is reliable and shows stronger correlations with cognitive performance than a general WMH rating scale in AD with WMH. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2005-08-01
A profile of equal impairment on tests of executive control and memory along with radiologic evidence involving about one-fourth of the cerebral white matter as measured by the Leukoaraiosis Scale may be sufficient for a diagnosis of subcortical vascular dementia. 2 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 27,780 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.