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 651–675 of 1,459 studies in Brain scans and imaging(page 27 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.
Neuropathological studies have shown that the typical neurofibrillary pathology of hyperphosphorylated tau protein in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) preferentially affects specific brain regions whereas others remain relatively spared. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·1996-03-01
Hippocampal atrophy detected by volumetric MRI is a sensitive feature of early Alzheimer's disease (AD), but there are no studies evaluating hippocampal atrophy by MR volumetry in other dementing diseases. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Radiology·2011-01-19
LSN analysis revealed that interconnectivity patterns of brain regions can be used to classify subjects with AD, those with aMCI, and CN subjects. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2015-06-06
Although amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary pathology play important roles in Alzheimer disease (AD), our understanding of AD is incomplete, and the contribution of microglia and iron to neurodegeneration is unknown. 1 key finding →
In subjects with aMCI poor global cognitive performance at baseline, the worsening on executive functions and on functional status but not the worsening on memory functions are independently associated with the conversion to dementia of Alzheimer type at 1 year, follow-up. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Stroke·2008-01-03
Cognitively normal subjects with HTN (n=19) had decreased rCBF in the putamen, globus pallidus, bilaterally, and in the left hippocampus compared with normotensives (n=22). 1 key finding →
The present study indicated that most individuals with the comorbidity of epilepsy and dementia have complex partial seizures that may be adequately controlled on AED therapy. 4 key findings →
Our results revealed disease severity-related alterations of the thalamo-default mode network and thalamocortical connectivity in AD and MCI patients. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-09-02
The [(11)C]PIB uptake of the patients with AD did not increase significantly during follow-up when compared with that of the controls. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2015-07-21
Anosognosia in AD is due not only to functional changes within cortical midline structures involved in self-referential processes (OFC, PCC), but also to disconnection between these regions as well as with the medial temporal lobe. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2013-11-04
Brain changes reminiscent of Alzheimer disease (AD) have been previously reported in a substantial portion of elderly cognitive healthy (HC) subjects. 4 key findings →
We report kinetic modeling results of dynamic acquisition data from 0 to 100 min after injection with the tau PET tracer 18 F-AV-1451 in 19 subjects. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Radiology·2018-05-15
Analyses revealed high overlap between components, regional and quantitative hypoperfusion, and hypometabolism in patients with AD compared with HC participants in precuneus, parietal, temporal, and occipital cortex. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurology·2010-10-01
Also, patients with MS who engaged in more cognitive leisure were able to withstand more severe brain atrophy at a given cognitive status. 1 key finding →
Prior MR imaging studies, primarily at 1.5T, established hippocampal atrophy as a biomarker for Alzheimer disease. 3T MR imaging offers a higher contrast and signal-to-noise ratio, yet distortions and intensity uniformity are harder to control. 4 key findings →
In this work we use a large scale regularization approach based on penalized logistic regression to automatically classify structural MRI images (sMRI) according to cognitive status. 3 key findings →
The rising incidence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) poses significant challenges to traditional diagnostic methods, which primarily rely on neuropsychological assessments and brain MRIs. 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 27,380 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.