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 851–875 of 1,459 studies in Brain scans and imaging (page 35 of 59) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

Tauvid has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2020 for positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of adult patients with cognitive impairments undergoing evaluation for Alzheimer's disease (AD) based on tau pathology. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Before any manifestations of cognitive or behavioral changes, there were differences in resting state connectivity in cognitively normal subjects with brain amyloid deposition, suggesting that early manifestation of Abeta toxicity can be detected using resting state fMRI. 3 key findings →

Participants: 35 Evidence: low

Amyloid deposition is present in 20-50% of nondemented older adults yet the functional consequences remain unclear. 2 key findings →

Participants: 38 Evidence: low

Despite differing white and grey matter retention characteristics, cortical retention for each (18)F tracer was highly correlated with that of PiB, enabling conversion of thresholds across tracer measurement scales with a high level of internal consistency. 2 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: low

Recent evidence suggests that some brain areas act as hubs interconnecting distinct, functionally specialized systems. 5 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: low

Activity and reactivity of the default mode network in the brain was studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in 28 nondemented individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 18 patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD), and 41 healthy elderly controls (HC). 3 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

White matter changes in patients with Alzheimer's disease are likely to be secondary to wallerian degeneration of fibre tracts due to neuronal loss in cortical associative areas. 3 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: low

White matter changes in mild cognitive impairment and AD: A diffusion tensor imaging study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2005-07-07

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) can detect, in vivo, the directionality of molecular diffusion and estimate the microstructural integrity of white matter (WM) tracts. 1 key finding →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

The Galveston Orientation and Amnesia Test (GOAT) was developed to evaluate cognition serially during the subacute stage of recovery from closed head injury. 1 key finding →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

Fecal microbiota transfer between young and aged mice reverses hallmarks of the aging gut, eye, and brain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Microbiome 2022-04-29

These findings demonstrate that the aging gut microbiota drives detrimental changes in the gut-brain and gut-retina axes suggesting that microbial modulation may be of therapeutic benefit in preventing inflammation-related tissue decline in later life. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our study confirms some other studies in showing that in AD patients there is a reduction of parapapillary and macular RNFL thickness and macular volume as measured by OCT. 5 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

Ocular indicators of Alzheimer's: exploring disease in the retina

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2016-09-19

Although historically perceived as a disorder confined to the brain, our understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has expanded to include extra-cerebral manifestation, with mounting evidence of abnormalities in the eye. 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 27,380 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed