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 1–24 of 24 studies with an author at University of California, Berkeley (US) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 24 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 24 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

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

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

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

Reference region selection has an important influence on the detection of florbetapir change. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate

Rates of Amyloid Imaging Positivity in Patients With Primary Progressive Aphasia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2018-03-01

Inclusion criteria included clinical diagnosis of PPA; availability of complete speech, language, and cognitive testing; magnetic resonance imaging performed within 6 months of the cognitive evaluation; and PET carbon 11-labeled Pittsburgh Compound-B or florbetapir F 18 brain scan results. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 109 Evidence: moderate

To develop a new method for measuring Alzheimer's disease (AD)-specific similarity of cortical atrophy patterns at the individual-level, we employed an individual-level machine learning algorithm. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 473 Evidence: moderate

In mostly small single-center studies, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with characteristic and progressive reductions in fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) measurements of the regional cerebral metabolic rate for glucose (CMRgl). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Amyloid deposition, hypometabolism, and longitudinal cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2012-10-01

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

Cerebrospinal fluid and positron emission tomography amyloid-β were measured at baseline in 769 persons [161 healthy controls, 68 subjective memory complaints, 419 mild cognitive impairment and 121 Alzheimer's disease dementia, mean age 72 years (standard deviation 7 years), 47% females] and used to predict diagnosis, APOE ε4 carriage status, cerebral blood flow, cerebrospinal fluid total-tau and phosphorylated-tau levels (cross-sectionally); and hippocampal volume, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography results and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale scores (longitudinally). 2 key findings →

Participants: 769 Evidence: low

The Centiloid Project: Standardizing quantitative amyloid plaque estimation by PET

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2014-10-28

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

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

Detecting Transthyretin Cardiac Amyloidosis With Artificial Intelligence

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Cardiology 2025-11-10

ATTRACTnet was developed in an internal test set of 799 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.1 [11.1] years; 516 [64.7%] male and 283 [35.3%] female) using 5-fold cross-validation with an additional external test set of 422 patients. 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 799 Evidence: high

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

Quantitative Brain Amyloid PET

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine 2024-05-01

Since the development of amyloid tracers for PET imaging, there has been interest in quantifying amyloid burden in the brains of patients with Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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.

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

We investigated the performance of FDG PET using an automated procedure for discrimination between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and controls, and studied the influence of demographic and technical factors. 4 key findings →

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 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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed