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.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

The social, structural, and physical conditions in which individuals live, work, and age, collectively termed social determinants of health (SDOH), are associated with risk of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). Differences in brain function in later life may offer understanding of how SDOH become biologically embedded and confer differential ADRD risk. However, how functional neuroimaging techniques have been used to study SDOH in cognitive aging and ADRD has yet to be systematically characterized. We therefore conducted a scoping review. Three databases were searched, 2,930 articles were screened, and 41 studies were included. Education was the most frequently studied SDOH domain, accounting for 65.9% (k = 27) of studies, followed by economic and occupation (k = 9, 22.0%), social and community (k = 5, 12.2%), food (k = 4, 9.8%), and physical environment (k = 3, 7.3%). Of the 41 studies, five (12.2%) examined multidomain determinants and one study (2.4%) examined three determinants each from different domains. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was most frequently employed (k = 31, 75.6%), followed by electroencephalography (EEG; k = 7, 17.1%), and magnetoencephalography (MEG; k = 4, 9.8%). One study (2.4%) employed a multimodal approach, while none used functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Resting state paradigms (k = 27, 65.9%) outnumbered task-based (k = 14, 34.1%) and most studies were cross-sectional (k = 38, 92.7%). The predominant focus on education, fMRI, and cross-sectional designs highlights many opportunities for future investigation of how SDOH may be associated with later life brain function.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 19 of the 62 points it could be judged on, which is 31 of 100. Raw total 31 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 31 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 31 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 19 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 31 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (PsyArXiv)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 4 / 12 A snapshot of people at one point in time
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 4 / 10 Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 19 / 62 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 19 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 31 out of 100.
Total 31 / 100 Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Jenkins, J. E., Rich, A., Manrique, I., Moukaled, S., Marchant, N. L., & Carmichael, O. (2026). Functional neuroimaging as a tool to understand social determinants of health in cognitive aging and ADRD: a scoping review. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/m8bue_v1

Vancouver

Jenkins JE, Rich A, Manrique I, Moukaled S, Marchant NL, Carmichael O. Functional neuroimaging as a tool to understand social determinants of health in cognitive aging and ADRD: a scoping review. PsyArXiv. 2026. doi:10.31234/osf.io/m8bue_v1.

BibTeX

@article{jenkins2026-e75f9c65,
  author  = {Jenkins, J. E. and Rich, A. and Manrique, I. and Moukaled, S. and Marchant, N. L. and Carmichael, O.},
  title   = {{Functional neuroimaging as a tool to understand social determinants of health in cognitive aging and ADRD: a scoping review}},
  journal = {PsyArXiv},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.31234/osf.io/m8bue_v1},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/m8bue_v1}
}

Related studies in Brain scans and imaging

Also tagged “reserve”

208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Brain scans and imaging

See all studies in Brain scans and imaging →