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 1–25 of 30 studies with an author at University of Southern California (US) (page 1 of 2) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 30 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 30 studies tagged classification — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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 double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I2 = 95%). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 49,227 Evidence: high

We found a sequence to pathological changes, with rates of Aβ deposition in mutation carriers being significantly different from those in non-carriers first (across regions that showed a significant difference, at a mean of 18·9 years [SD 3·3] before expected onset), followed by hypometabolism (14·1 years [5·1] before expected onset), and lastly structural decline (4·7 years [4·2] before expected onset). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 346 Evidence: moderate

Compared with participants who learned that they had a not elevated amyloid result, individuals who learned of an elevated amyloid result were no more likely to experience short-term increases in depression (mean [SD] change in the Geriatric Depression Scale score, 0.02 [1.3] vs 0.04 [1.3]; P = .90), anxiety (mean [SD] change in State-Trait Anxiety Inventory score, -0.02 [3.2] vs -0.15 [3.0]; P = .65), or suicidality (mean [SD] change in the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale score, 0.0 [0.4] vs -0.01 [0.5]; P = .67). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,167 Evidence: high

Association Between Elevated Brain Amyloid and Subsequent Cognitive Decline Among Cognitively Normal Persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. JAMA 2017-06-01

Among the 445 participants (243 with normal amyloid, 202 with elevated amyloid), mean (SD) age was 74.0 (5.9) years, mean education was 16.4 (2.7) years, and 52% were women. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 243 Evidence: moderate

Therefore, we conducted a longitudinal study to examine whether PM2.5 affects the episodic memory decline, and also explored the potential mediating role of increased neuroanatomic risk of Alzheimer's disease associated with exposure. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 998 Evidence: moderate

White Matter Abnormalities and Cognition in Aging and Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-06-09

Of 4467 participants who underwent 9208 longitudinal cognitive sessions, 2698 (60.4%) were female, and the mean age (SD) was 74.3 (9.2) years; 3213 were cognitively unimpaired, 972 had mild cognitive impairment, and 282 had AD dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,467 Evidence: moderate

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is an ongoing, longitudinal, multicenter study designed to develop clinical, imaging, genetic, and biochemical biomarkers for the early detection and tracking of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 400 Evidence: moderate

Although brain neuroinflammation may play an instrumental role in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease, its actual impact on disease progression remains controversial, being reported as either detrimental or protective. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 33 Evidence: moderate

Predicting Alzheimer's disease progression using multi-modal deep learning approach

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Scientific reports 2019-02-13

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative condition marked by a decline in cognitive functions with no validated disease modifying treatment. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

In DIAD, solanezumab was not associated with ARIA. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 52 Evidence: moderate

The neuropsychologic test battery from the Uniform Data Set (UDS) of the Alzheimer's Disease Centers (ADC) program of the National Institute on Aging consists of brief measures of attention, processing speed, executive function, episodic memory, and language. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Sensitive detection of cognitive decline over the course of preclinical Alzheimer's disease is critical as the field moves toward secondary prevention trials. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Measures are needed that identify persons that will develop Alzheimer's disease in order to target them for preventative interventions. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Neuropathological basis of magnetic resonance images in aging and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2008-01-01

Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is used widely for assessment of patients with cognitive impairment, but the pathological correlates are unclear, especially when multiple pathologies are present. 4 key findings →

Participants: 93 Evidence: moderate

As a result, our combined method achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AU-ROC) curve of 98.33, 93.59, 96.83, 94.64, 96.43, and 95.24% for AD vs. MCIs subjects which are high relative to single modality results and other state-of-the-art approaches. 2 key findings →

Participants: 158 Evidence: low

These results support the feasibility of bridging of clinical trials in the prodromal stage of AD between Asia and western countries. 3 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: low

Brain imaging with diffusion-weighted MRI (dMRI) is sensitive to microstructural white matter (WM) changes associated with brain aging and neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Participants: 317 Evidence: low

Machine learning (ML) on structural MRI data shows high potential for classifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression, but the specific contribution of brain regions, demographics, and proteinopathy remains unclear. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 568 Evidence: moderate

A cohort of patients was followed up longitudinally and the likelihood of arriving at two cognitive end points was assessed using the Cox proportional hazards model and eight explanatory variables. 4 key findings →

Participants: 135 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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