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 176–200 of 492 studies in Hippocampus size on brain scans (page 8 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.

Neuroplasticity may have a core role in the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder (MDD), a concept supported by experimental studies that found that excessive cortisol secretion and/or excessive production of inflammatory cytokines impairs neuronal plasticity and neurogenesis in the hippocampus. 3 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: low

Cross-sectional and longitudinal association of body mass index and brain volume

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Human brain mapping 2012-09-24

Although a link between body mass index (BMI) and brain volume has been established in several cross-sectional studies, evidence of the association between change in BMI over time and changes in brain structure is limited. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

The s allele variant of the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTT) has recently been observed to moderate the relationship of stress to depression and anxiety. 5 key findings →

Participants: 56 Evidence: low

Early to mid-adolescence is an important developmental period for subcortical brain maturation, but longitudinal studies of these neurodevelopmental changes are lacking. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Our findings confirm and extend previous voxel-based morphometry analyses in ill subjects with schizophrenia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 169 Evidence: low

Multiple Brain Markers are Linked to Age-Related Variation in Cognition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) 2014-10-14

Age-related alterations in brain structure and function have been challenging to link to cognition due to potential overlapping influences of multiple neurobiological cascades. 3 key findings →

Participants: 186 Evidence: low

Medial temporal lobe dependent cognitive functions are highly vulnerable to hypoxia in the hippocampal region, yet little is known about the relationship between the richness of hippocampal vascular supply and cognition. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Multi-modal imaging predicts memory performance in normal aging and cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2008-10-05

This study (n=161) related morphometric MR imaging, FDG-PET and APOE genotype to memory scores in normal controls (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 161 Evidence: low

Early life experience influences stress reactivity and mental health through effects on cognitive-emotional functions that are, in part, linked to gene expression in the dorsal and ventral hippocampus. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Elevated glucocorticoid concentrations, decreased hippocampal volume and frontal atrophy with poor cognitive function have been reported in the elderly but not extensively in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 172 Evidence: low

These findings support evidence of genetic control of brain volume even in adults, particularly of hippocampal and neocortical volume and of cortical volumetric reductions being familial, but do not support measures of subcortical volumes per se as representing intermediate biologic phenotypes. 4 key findings →

Participants: 169 Evidence: low

Exercise training is an effective means for promoting white matter and hippocampal recovery and improving reaction time in children treated with cranial radiation for brain tumors. 3 key findings →

Participants: 16 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