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 151–175 of 492 studies in Hippocampus size on brain scans (page 7 of 20) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 492 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 “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.

Hippocampal harms, protection and recovery following regular cannabis use

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Translational psychiatry 2016-01-12

Shifting policies towards legalisation of cannabis for therapeutic and recreational use raise significant ethical issues for health-care providers seeking evidence-based recommendations. 4 key findings →

Participants: 111 Evidence: low

Atlas normalization, as commonly used by functional data analysis, provides an automated solution to the widely encountered problem of correcting for head size variation in regional and whole-brain morphometric analyses, so long as an age- and population-appropriate target atlas is used. 2 key findings →

Participants: 49 Evidence: low

Cellular changes in the postmortem hippocampus in major depression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Biological psychiatry 2004-11-01

In MDD, the packing density of glia, pyramidal neurons, and granule cell neurons is significantly increased in all hippocampal subfields and the dentate gyrus, and pyramidal neuron soma size is significantly decreased as well. 5 key findings →

Participants: 19 Evidence: low

These findings suggest that long-term treatment with paroxetine is associated with improvement of verbal declarative memory deficits and an increase in hippocampal volume in PTSD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 28 Evidence: low

Regional brain abnormalities associated with long-term heavy cannabis use

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Archives of general psychiatry 2008-06-01

These results provide new evidence of exposure-related structural abnormalities in the hippocampus and amygdala in long-term heavy cannabis users and corroborate similar findings in the animal literature. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Usefulness of MRI measures of entorhinal cortex versus hippocampus in AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology 2000-05-01

Despite the theoretical rationale for the superiority of entorhinal measurements in early AD, the authors found MRI measurements of the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex were approximately equivalent at intergroup discrimination. 2 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

Carotid atherosclerosis markers were associated with MRI indices of brain ischemia and aging and with cognitive impairment in a community-based sample of middle-aged adults. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,975 Evidence: low

Alterations in learning processes and the neural circuitry that supports fear conditioning and extinction represent mechanisms through which trauma exposure might influence risk for psychopathology. 2 key findings →

Participants: 94 Evidence: low

Recent theories have suggested that chronic pain could be partly maintained by maladaptive physiological responses of the organism facing a recurrent stressor. 5 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: low

Hippocampal volumes in cognitively normal persons at genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Annals of neurology 1998-08-01

Brain imaging techniques have the potential to characterize neurobiological changes that precede the onset of cognitive impairment in persons at risk for Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 22 Evidence: low

Amyloid imaging studies of presymptomatic familial Alzheimer's disease have revealed the striatum and thalamus to be the earliest sites of amyloid deposition. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Our recently published data on children investigated within 5 days of a PFC showed that children investigated by MRI within 48 h of a PFC had large hippocampal volumes and prolongation of T2 relaxation time. 5 key findings →

Participants: 14 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