The likelihood of amyloid positivity was associated with age and APOE ε4 status. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 377 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
There was a statistically significant increase in the global estimate of cortical tau burden as measured by standardized uptake value ratio (SUVr) from baseline to 18 months in amyloid-β+ but not amyloid-β- subjects (least squared mean change in flortaucipir SUVr : 0.0524 ± 0.0085, P < 0.0001 and 0.0007 ± 0.0024 P = 0.7850, respectively), and a significant association between magnitude of SUVr increase and baseline tau burden. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 202 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study's findings suggest that PET imaging with [18F]flortaucipir could be used to identify the density and distribution of AD-type tau pathology and the presence of high levels of AD neuropathological change, supporting a neuropathological diagnosis of AD. 4 key findings →
Participants: 64 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ADNI has demonstrated the feasibility and utility of multicenter PET studies and is helping to clarify the role of biomarkers in the study of aging and dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Florbetapir-PET imaging was performed a mean of 99 days (range, 1-377 days) before death for the 29 individuals in the primary analysis cohort. 2 key findings →
Participants: 35 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Reference region selection has an important influence on the detection of florbetapir change. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
For one of the primary analyses, the interpretation of the florbetapir scans (majority interpretation of five nuclear medicine physicians, who classified each scan as amyloid positive or amyloid negative) was compared with amyloid pathology (assessed according to the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease standards, and classed as amyloid positive for moderate or frequent plaques or amyloid negative for no or sparse plaques); correlation of the image analysis results with amyloid burden was tested as a coprimary endpoint. 3 key findings →
Participants: 59 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) population, we examined (1) cross-sectional relationships between amyloid deposition, hypometabolism, and cognition, and (2) associations between amyloid and hypometabolism measurements and longitudinal cognitive measurements. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
(18)F-BAY94-9172 binding matched the reported post-mortem distribution of Abeta plaques. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Although amyloid imaging with PiB-PET ([C-11]Pittsburgh Compound-B positron emission tomography), and now with F-18-labeled tracers, has produced remarkably consistent qualitative findings across a large number of centers, there has been considerable variability in the exact numbers reported as quantitative outcome measures of tracer retention. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
An (18)F-labeled PET amyloid-beta (Abeta) imaging agent could facilitate the clinical evaluation of late-life cognitive impairment by providing an objective measure for Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology. 4 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 16 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Florbetapir F18 has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for in vivo assessment of amyloid pathology in patients undergoing evaluation for Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Participants: 229 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
Florbetapir F 18 appears to have a wide effective dose range and a high test-retest reliability for both quantitative (SUVr) values and visual assessment of the ligand.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.
1,034 records (3.6% 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 →