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 51–75 of 78 studies in Brain scans and imaging published 2020 (page 3 of 4) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 78 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.

We found no significant changes in substantia nigra or cortex flortaucipir uptake in Parkinson's disease patients over two years and no association with changes in cognitive symptoms. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

We demonstrate for the first time a link between MBI and early AD pathology in a cognitively intact elderly population, supporting the use of the MBI-C as a metric to enhance clinical trial enrolment. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the last 20 years, research focused on developing retinal imaging as a source of potential biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases, has increased significantly. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mean SUVRs were calculated for progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal degeneration, and neurofibrillary tangle Braak stage regions of interest, and these values were compared to SUVRs derived from young, non-autopsy, cognitively normal controls used as a standard for tau negativity. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Fixed tissue sections of frontal cortex and caudate from 10 of the AD cases were processed for microscopy using fluorescent derivatives of flutemetamol (cyano-flutemetamol) and PiB (cyano-PiB) and compared to Aβ immunohistochemistry and pan-amyloid (X-34) histology. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our results indicated that higher global Aβ-SUVR was associated with higher mean diffusivity (MD) in the entire CN group (p = 0.023), and with both higher MD (p = 0.015) and lower fractional anisotropy (FA) (p = 0.026) in APOEɛ4 carriers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Highest agreement with [18F]FDG-PET quantification was reached for [18F]PI-2620-PET acquisition from 0.5 to 2.5 min p.i. for global mean (lowest R = 0.69) and cerebellar scaling (lowest R = 0.63). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Brain Amyloid Burden and Resting-State Functional Connectivity in Late Middle-Aged Hispanics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Frontiers in neurology 2020-10-06

Non-linear relations of brain amyloid beta (Aβ) with task- based functional connectivity (tbFC) measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have been reported in late middle age. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Global Brain Involvement in Posterior Cortical Atrophy: Multimodal MR Imaging Investigation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Brain topography 2020-08-06

Posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), considered a visual variant of Alzheimer's disease, has similar pathological characteristics yet shows a selective visual manifestation with relative preservation of other cortical areas, at least at early stages of disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our results showed that compared to healthy older adults, aMCI patients showed lower anti-correlation between the cerebellar DMN and several cerebral DMN regions. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Optical coherence tomography reveals light-dependent retinal responses in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. NeuroImage 2020-06-05

Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) is an accessible clinical tool for measuring structural changes to the retina, and increasingly as a biomarker for brain-predominant neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's. Information about retinal function can also be extracted from OCT images, but is under-studied, with literature examples often employing challenging protocols or requiring specialized hardware. 1 key finding →

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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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