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 51–75 of 1,163 studies (page 3 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.

Amyloid chronicity provides unique information about cognitive decline and neurofibrillary tangle development and may be useful to investigate preclinical Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 257 Evidence: moderate

Our results encourage an independent validation cohort study to confirm the indication that the plasma Aβ 1-40 /Aβ 1-42 ratio, assessed via Simoa, may improve future standard of care and clinical trial design. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 276 Evidence: moderate

Primary include several amyloid PET measurements (Centiloid, SUVr, BPND , R1 ), and secondary are their changes from baseline, relationship to other amyloid markers (cerebrospinal fluid and visual assessment), and predictive value of AD-related decline. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,000 Evidence: moderate

Multitracer model for staging cortical amyloid deposition using PET imaging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Neurology 2020-07-16

SUVr abnormality was most frequently observed in cingulate, followed by orbitofrontal, precuneal, and insular cortices and then the associative, temporal, and occipital regions. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 867 Evidence: moderate

Twelve articles-published between the 2007 and 2017-have been included in this systematic review after a quantitative and qualitative selection. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

Injury markers predict time to dementia in subjects with MCI and amyloid pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2012-09-26

In subjects with MCI and evidence of amyloid pathology, the injury markers CSF t-tau and p-tau and hippocampal atrophy can predict further cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 110 Evidence: moderate

The cortical signature of prodromal AD: regional thinning predicts mild AD dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2008-12-24

Thinning in specific cortical areas known to be affected by Alzheimer disease (AD) is detectable in individuals with questionable AD dementia (QAD) and predicts conversion to mild AD dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 49 Evidence: moderate

We tested the trained model using five other studies, three of which used PET as a biomarker of significant amyloid β burden (testing the deep learning model between amyloid β positive vs amyloid β negative). 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 648 Evidence: moderate

Accumulating evidence demonstrates that metabolic changes in the brain associated with neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial dysfunction play an important role in the pathophysiology of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

However, few longitudinal Pittsburgh compound B-positron emission tomography studies have tested this hypothesis, and with conflicting results. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 32 Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal neuroimaging biomarkers differ across Alzheimer’s disease phenotypes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Brain 2020-04-29

Principal component analysis identified patterns of variation in baseline and longitudinal measures of tau uptake and volume that were significantly different across phenotypes. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 57 Evidence: moderate

The agreement between Aβ classification with CSF Aβ42 and 18F-flutemetamol positron emission tomography was very high (κ = 0.85). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 118 Evidence: moderate

Amyloid-β 11C-PiB-PET imaging results from 2 randomized bapineuzumab phase 3 AD trials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Neurology 2015-07-24

The (11)C-PiB-PET imaging results demonstrated reduction of fibrillar Aβ accumulation in patients with Alzheimer disease treated with bapineuzumab; however, as no clinical benefit was observed, the findings are consistent with the hypotheses that bapineuzumab may not have been initiated early enough in the disease course, the doses were insufficient, or the most critical Aβ species were inadequately targeted. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 115 Evidence: low

Baseline MRI predictors of conversion from MCI to probable AD in the ADNI cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Current Alzheimer research 2009-08-01

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is a multi-center study assessing neuroimaging in diagnosis and longitudinal monitoring. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 339 Evidence: moderate

[11C]PIB in a nondemented population: potential antecedent marker of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Neurology 2006-08-01

Longitudinal studies will be required to determine the association of elevated [(11)C]PIB binding and risk of developing dementia of the Alzheimer type. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Functional network integrity presages cognitive decline in preclinical Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Neurology 2017-06-07

In clinically normal older adults, lower functional connectivity predicted more rapid decline in PACC scores over time, particularly when coupled with increased Aβ burden. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 237 Evidence: moderate

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