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 751–775 of 1,164 studies (page 31 of 47) · 28,180 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 1,164 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.

Neocortical tracer retention was highly comparable using both SUVR and distribution volume ratio-1 values obtained from dynamic scans. 5 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

Forty-four consecutive patients with clinical evidence of dementia, were retrospectively evaluated. 5 key findings →

Participants: 44 Evidence: low

Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy neuropathological change (LATE-NC) refers to the aberrant accumulation of TDP-43 in the brains of ageing individuals either in isolation or in combination with neurodegenerative disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Amyloid PET imaging is a novel diagnostic test that can detect in living humans one of the two defining pathologic lesions of Alzheimer disease, amyloid-β deposition in the brain. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Astrocytosis shows a distinct regional pattern in AD brain compared to fibrillar Aβ, suggesting that different types of astrocytes may be associated with the pathophysiological processes in AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) has been associated with Alzheimer disease, although this relationship is still subject to debate. 4 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: moderate

White matter structural connectivity was lower in autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease mutation carriers compared with noncarriers and correlated with estimated years to symptom onset. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Clinicians reported high diagnostic confidence in 83% of 18 F-FDG PET compared to 67% for CBF-SPECT (P = 0.001). 2 key findings →

Participants: 126 Evidence: low

Resting brain connectivity: changes during the progress of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Radiology 2010-08-01

Changes in PCC functional connectivity comprised bidirectional alterations in the resting networks in AD-affected brains, and the impaired resting functional connectivity seemed to change with AD progression. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The discordant topography between atrophy and hypometabolism reported in AD is already present at the aMCI stage. 4 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

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

Rey's Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) is a powerful neuropsychological tool for testing episodic memory, which is widely used for the cognitive assessment in dementia and pre-dementia conditions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The study of brain networks by resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) is a promising method for identifying patients with dementia from healthy controls (HC). 2 key findings →

Participants: 89 Evidence: low

Caregivers with higher mastery had less NE reactivity to the stressor task. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) has fostered collaboration among researchers around the world, catalyzing innovation and accelerating progress in the field. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is considered to be an early stage in the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) providing an opportunity to investigate brain pathogenesis prior to the onset of dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 1,160 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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