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 1–25 of 78 studies in Brain scans and imaging published 2020 (page 1 of 4) · 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.

Thinning of retinal layers, measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT), is associated with some neurodegenerative disorders such as established Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 622 Evidence: high

Amyloid chronicity provides unique information about cognitive decline and neurofibrillary tangle development and may be useful to investigate preclinical Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 257 Evidence: moderate

Primary include several amyloid PET measurements (Centiloid, SUVr, BPND , R1 ), and secondary are their changes from baseline, relationship to other amyloid markers (cerebrospinal fluid and visual assessment), and predictive value of AD-related decline. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,000 Evidence: moderate

In this study, elevated [18F]RO948 SUVRs were most often seen among Aβ-positive cases, which suggests that [18F]RO948 has high specificity for AD-type tau and highlights its potential as a diagnostic marker in the differential diagnosis of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 257 Evidence: low

Longitudinal neuroimaging biomarkers differ across Alzheimer’s disease phenotypes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Brain 2020-04-29

Principal component analysis identified patterns of variation in baseline and longitudinal measures of tau uptake and volume that were significantly different across phenotypes. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 57 Evidence: moderate

Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Assessment of Brain Iron Level in Alzheimer Disease Using 3-T MRI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Radiology 2020-06-30

Iron concentration in the deep gray matter and neocortical regions was higher in patients with Alzheimer disease than in healthy control participants. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

β-Amyloid plaques and tau-containing neurofibrillary tangles are the two neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and are thought to play crucial roles in a neurodegenerative cascade leading to dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 32 Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal ComBat: A method for harmonizing longitudinal multi-scanner imaging data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. NeuroImage 2020-07-05

While aggregation of neuroimaging datasets from multiple sites and scanners can yield increased statistical power, it also presents challenges due to systematic scanner effects. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 663 Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal validity of PET-based staging of regional amyloid deposition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Human brain mapping 2020-07-10

Positron emission tomography (PET)-based staging of regional amyloid deposition has recently emerged as a promising tool for sensitive detection and stratification of pathology progression in Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 403 Evidence: moderate

Our baseline and 2-year imaging findings are compatible with a biphasic trajectory of inflammation in Alzheimer's disease: MCI cases with low baseline but subsequently rising β-amyloid load show correlated levels of microglial activation which then later decline when the β-amyloid load approaches AD levels. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Patient-centered connectivity-based prediction of tau pathology spread in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Science advances 2020-11-27

In Alzheimer's disease (AD), the Braak staging scheme suggests a stereotypical tau spreading pattern that does, however, not capture interindividual variability in tau deposition. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Inter-reader agreements for the visual reading based on a 3-point scale (BAPL score) calculated by Fleiss kappa coefficients were 0.46 and 0.76 for the visual reading without and with the deep learning system, respectively. 3 key findings →

Participants: 121 Evidence: high

A deep learning framework combining 3D CNN and LRP algorithms can be used with tau PET images to identify informative features for AD classification and may have application for early detection during prodromal stages of AD. 4 key findings →

Participants: 132 Evidence: moderate

Among dementia-like diseases, Alzheimer disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD) are two of the most frequent. 2 key findings →

Participants: 60 Evidence: low

Hypertension is one of the main risk factors for vascular dementia and Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 37 Evidence: moderate

Amyloid and tau imaging biomarkers explain cognitive decline from late middle-age

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2020-01-01

This study investigated differences in retrospective cognitive trajectories between amyloid and tau PET biomarker stratified groups in initially cognitively unimpaired participants sampled from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Hyperspectral data and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness data were used in a linear discriminant classification model to discriminate between AD patients and controls. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

284 eyes of 159 subjects (222 eyes from 123 cognitively healthy subjects and 62 eyes from 36 subjects with AD) were used to develop the model. 5 key findings →

Participants: 159 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