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 101–125 of 492 studies in Hippocampus size on brain scans (page 5 of 20) · 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 “Hippocampus size on brain scans” covers

Hippocampus size on brain scans — Studies that measure the hippocampus, a part of the brain central to memory, usually on MRI, and what its shrinking says about memory loss.

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.

The hippocampus is one of the earliest affected brain regions in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its dysfunction is believed to underlie the core feature of the disease-memory impairment. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Building on well-established animal data demonstrating the effects of early maternal support on hippocampal development and adaptive coping, a few longitudinal studies suggest that early caregiver support also impacts human hippocampal development. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Patients with chronic schizophrenia displayed bilateral hippocampal volume reduction. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 89 Evidence: moderate

Hippocampal volumetric and morphometric studies in frontal and temporal lobe epilepsy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 1992-08-01

The most common temporal lobe pathology is Ammons Horn sclerosis (AHS), and several different imaging techniques have been utilized to detect this with varying success. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 20 Evidence: low

ECT-induced neuroplasticity in the hippocampus and amygdala relates to improved clinical response and is pronounced in regions with prominent connections to ventromedial prefrontal cortex and other limbic structures. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 43 Evidence: moderate

Overall, our results suggest that a relatively small hippocampal volume may be a vulnerability factor for a bad treatment response in major depression. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Early maternal support has been shown to promote specific gene expression, neurogenesis, adaptive stress responses, and larger hippocampal volumes in developing animals. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Our results suggest that decreased hippocampal tail and hippocampal head volumes could be trait changes, whereas hippocampal body changes may be dependent on treatment. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 39 Evidence: low

These results do not support the hypothesis that hippocampal volumes diminish during the 1-year follow-up period. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The notion of uncontrollable stress causing reduced hippocampal size remains controversial in the posttraumatic stress disorder literature, because human studies cannot discern the causality of effect. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Early parental care is important for hippocampal maturation: evidence from brain morphology in humans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. NeuroImage 2009-07-09

The effects of early life experience on later brain structure and function have been studied extensively in animals, yet the relationship between childhood experience and normal brain development in humans remains largely unknown. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Segmented hippocampal volume in children and adolescents with posttraumatic stress disorder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Biological psychiatry 2005-09-30

Future longitudinal studies with trauma control subjects and neuropsychological measures are indicated to further elucidate the relationship between hippocampus and behavioral abnormalities in young PTSD subjects. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

↑ 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