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 451–475 of 1,163 studies (page 19 of 47) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 1,163 studies tagged pet — 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.

This meta-analysis included cross-sectional amyloid PET scans acquired with 5 radiotracers from 49 227 participants across 53 studies from 15 countries (mean age, 71 years; 54% female, 62% cognitively impaired). 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 48 Evidence: high

Overall, these findings highlight the potential of EEG connectivity features for dementia classification and emphasize the importance of careful feature engineering and low-complexity models in the case of small-sample datasets. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

In the within-language condition, combined speech timing and lexico-semantic features yielded maximal classification (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]=0.88), outperforming single-feature models (AUC=0.79 for timing features; AUC=0.80 for lexico-semantic features). 5 key findings →

Participants: 211 Evidence: low

Neuroinflammation in dementia: A meta-analysis of PET imaging studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Medicine 2024-05-01

This study summarizes the existing literature on TSPO expression in specific regions of the brain in patients with dementia, and also provides some preliminary evidence on the possible association between neuroinflammation and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

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.

Cerebrospinal fluid p-tau231 as an early indicator of emerging pathology in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. EBioMedicine 2022-02-12

All CSF p-tau biomarkers were accurate predictors of cognitive impairment but CSF p-tau217 demonstrated the largest fold-changes in AD patients in comparison to non-AD dementias and cognitively unimpaired individuals. 3 key findings →

Participants: 171 Evidence: low

Plasma TP42/40 ratio showed a relevant and significant potential as a screening tool to identify brain Aβ positivity in preclinical and prodromal stages of Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 39 Evidence: low

More specifically, 18F-AV-1451 binding was significantly increased in patients with Alzheimer's disease, relative to patients with progressive supranuclear palsy and with control subjects, in the hippocampus and in occipital, parietal, temporal, and frontal cortices (t's > 2.2, P's < 0.04). 4 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Associations of quantitative susceptibility mapping with Alzheimer's disease clinical and imaging markers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. NeuroImage 2020-10-06

Altered iron metabolism has been hypothesized to be associated with Alzheimer's disease pathology, and prior work has shown associations between iron load and beta amyloid plaques. 5 key findings →

Participants: 421 Evidence: low

Major imaging biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease include amyloid deposition [imaged with [(11)C]Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) PET], altered glucose metabolism (imaged with [(18)F]fluro-deoxyglucose PET), and structural atrophy (imaged by MRI). 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

A decrease of self-confidence about memory abilities in cognitively normal elderly subjects may be related to the neuropathological hallmark of AD measured with PiB-positron emission tomography. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

We provide the first evidence for the capability of a high-resolution positron emission tomographic (PET) imaging system in quantitatively mapping amyloid accumulation in living amyloid precursor protein transgenic (Tg) mice. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

CRM-adjusted Aβ42 calibrator concentrations were calculated using the regression equation Y (CRM-adjusted) = 0.89X (calibrators) + 32.6. 5 key findings →

Participants: 766 Evidence: low

The specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of HTS positivity (HTSpos) were the highest (amyloid PET: 0.930 and 0.870, tau PET: 0.944 and 0.957, respectively), while Cimp and Nimp had a high negative predictive value (NPV) for amyloid PET (negativity) (0.750 and 0.725). 5 key findings →

Participants: 155 Evidence: low

Different pipelines gave highly inter-correlated standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) (rho = 0.93-0.99). 5 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: moderate

In HC and MCI subjects, FBP PET anterior and posterior cingulate and composite standard uptake value ratios correlated with CSF amyloid beta (Aβ1-42) and tau/Aβ1-42 ratios. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

The z-scores of perfusion-weighted images of both tracers showed high correlations across the brain, especially in the frontal and parietal lobes, which were the brain regions with pronounced perfusion deficit in the patient group (R = 0.83 ± 0.08; range, 0.61-0.95). 4 key findings →

Participants: 64 Evidence: moderate

Global visual scores were reliable, correlated with global cortical 18F-flortaucipir standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) and were associated with clinical diagnosis and amyloid status. 3 key findings →

Participants: 274 Evidence: low

Percentage of visually tau-positive scans increased with amyloid-beta deposition measured in 18F-florbetaben Centiloids (CL) (7.7% (<36 CL), 80% (>83 CL)). 18F-PI-2620 standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) was correlated with increased 18F-florbetaben CL in several regions of interest. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 74 Evidence: low

In the smallest required sample of 15 cAD and 10 Aβ-negative participants, conversion error was 1.7 Centiloids at 25 Centiloids and 3.4 Centiloids at 100 Centiloids. 5 key findings →

Participants: 157 Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 1,159 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 (3.7% 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