alzhub.org
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.

Research

31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 26–47 of 47 studies with an author at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US) · free to read (page 2 of 2) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 47 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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,851 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Comparison of multiple tau-PET measures as biomarkers in aging and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. NeuroImage 2017-06-03

The recent development of tau-specific positron emission tomography (PET) tracers enables in vivo quantification of regional tau pathology, one of the key lesions in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The mediational effects of FDG hypometabolism on the association between cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers and neurocognitive function

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. NeuroImage 2014-10-29

Positive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers of tau and amyloid beta42 suggest possible active underlying Alzheimer's disease (AD) including neurometabolic dysfunction and neurodegeneration leading to eventual cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 82 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The Evolution of Randomized Clinical Trial Designs to Assess Therapeutics in Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA network open 2025-08-01

A substantial difference in the type of therapeutics researched was observed, with anti-amyloid and anti-tau RCTs being more likely to be funded by the pharmaceutical industry compared with neurotransmitter or other RCTs (anti-amyloid or anti-tau, 68 of 71 [95.8%]; neurotransmitter, 52 of 69 [77.6%]; other, 33 of 52 [63.5%]). 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 203 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Comparison of Plasma p-tau217 and [18F]FDG-PET for Identifying Alzheimer Disease in People With Early-Onset or Atypical Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2024-12-23

Our study provides evidence that plasma p-tau217 has strong discriminative accuracy for AD among patients with early-onset and/or atypical dementia assessed in specialized settings. 4 key findings →

Participants: 81 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Multisite study of the relationships between antemortem [ 11 C]PIB‐PET Centiloid values and postmortem measures of Alzheimer's disease neuropathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2018-10-19

Our study demonstrated the robustness of a multisite Centiloid [ 11 C]PIB‐PET study and established a range of pathology‐based CL thresholds.

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Effect of Off-Target Binding on 18F-Flortaucipir Variability in Healthy Controls Across the Life Span

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine 2019-03-15

The correlation between white and gray matter disappeared after partial-volume correction in 11 C-PIB ( r 2 = 0) but persisted for 18 F-flortaucipir ( r 2 = 0.27), demonstrating that the correlation between white and gray matter signal in 18 F-flortaucipir is not solely due to partial-volume effects. 4 key findings →

Participants: 139 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Amyloid-β Imaging with Pittsburgh Compound B and Florbetapir: Comparing Radiotracers and Quantification Methods

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2012-11-19

PiB and florbetapir retention ratios were strongly associated in the same individuals, and this relationship was consistent across several data analysis methods, despite scan-rescan intervals of more than a year.

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Diagnostic performance of MK and Flortaucipir tau PET for the biological staging of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Clinical stages showed a progressively increased prevalence of Aβ-positivity and higher entorhinal tau PET pathology from cognitively normal (CN) to SOCD, MCI, and dementia in both tracers. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 446 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Early 11C-PIB frames and 18F-FDG PET measures are comparable: a study validated in a cohort of AD and FTLD patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine 2011-01-13

A 7-min window, corresponding to minutes 1-8 (frames 5-15), produced the highest voxelwise correlation between (18)F-FDG and pPIB (R = 0.78 ± 0.05). 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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.

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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events