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 801–825 of 1,163 studies (page 33 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.

Brain 18F-FDG PET scans interpreted with Neurostat and 3D-SSP displays accurately detected Alzheimer disease in patients with primary progressive aphasia or corticobasal syndrome as focal-onset dementias. 2 key findings →

Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate

Using amyloid PET imaging as a single primary surrogate efficacy measure in Alzheimer's disease immunotherapy trials, as happened when the FDA granted accelerated approval of aducanumab, is unjustified. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Differential neurocognitive network perturbation in amnestic and aphasic Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Neurology 2020-01-22

Despite the presumptive common underlying neuropathology of amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, the 2 groups displayed 2 different patterns of network perturbation, each concordant with the clinical presentation and the anatomy of neurodegeneration. 2 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

The groups of individuals who agreed to participate in the imaging substudies of AD trials were remarkably comparable to the comparison groups at baseline on a wide range of demographic and clinical measures; there seems to be a minimal effect of self-selection bias. 4 key findings →

Participants: 166 Evidence: high

Functional MRI has recently been used to examine activation associated with aging and dementia, yet little is known regarding the effect of cerebral atrophy on fMRI signal. 5 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: low

Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), we measured the volumes of various brain structures and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in 19 men with dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) and 18 healthy age-matched control men. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Utilizing the publicly available neuroimaging database enabled by Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI; http://adni.loni.usc.edu/ ), we have compared the performance of automated classification algorithms that differentiate AD vs. normal subjects using Positron Emission Tomography (PET) with fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

PET of β-Amyloid plaques (Aβ) using [ 18 F ] florbetaben ( [ 18 F ] FBB) and [ 18 F ] fluorodeoxyglucose ( [ 18 F ] FDG) increasingly aid clinicians in early diagnosis of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), frontotemporal disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and vascular dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: low

RAVLT was administered as part of a more extensive neuropsychological battery at baseline evaluation in 116 unselected patients referred by subjective memory complaints (SMC). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Differences in regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) between subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and healthy volunteers were investigated using statistical parametric mapping (SPM99). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Improved prediction of progression to Alzheimer's Disease (AD) among older individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is of high clinical and societal importance. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Peripheral benzodiazepine receptor (PBR) in the brain of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients has been discussed in relation to the role of gliosis in AD. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

It is imperative to recognize and mitigate persistent disparities in the COVID‐19 pandemic, particularly pertaining to participation in long‐COVID research. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,046 Evidence: moderate

Centiloids in Amyloid PET: A Practical Guide to Quantitation Interpretation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology 2026-02-10

The approval of disease-modifying antiamyloid therapies has expanded the clinical role of amyloid PET beyond diagnostic confirmation to include baseline characterization and longitudinal monitoring of treatment response. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Amyloid-targeting therapy has recently become widely available in the United States for the treatment of patients with symptomatic mild Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody therapies (AATs) are increasingly used for the treatment of early symptomatic Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Overall PiB-PET uptake increased during the first two years (before ARIA-E) and decreased during the last two years (including ARIA-E episodes) (0.03±0.05 vs. -0.04±0.04 SUVR/year, p-value=0.01, Figure 2). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Hybrid of DSR-GAN and CNN for Alzheimer disease detection based on MRI images

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Scientific Reports 2025-04-13

In this paper, we propose a deep super-resolution generative adversarial network (DSR-GAN) combined with a convolutional neural network (CNN) model designed to classify four stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD): Mild Dementia (MD), Moderate Dementia (MOD), Non-Demented (ND), and Very Mild Dementia (VMD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

weighted MRI can assess macro-structural brain atrophy, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) unveils these hidden microstructural alterations. 2 key findings →

Participants: 35 Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease and its clinical variants have characteristic spatial and temporal progression patterns of amyloid and tau driving symptomatology, but the distribution of microglia density, as measured by 18kDa translocator protein (TSPO) PET, is unknown. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimers disease (AD) represents the most prevalent form of dementia, affecting millions worldwide and posing significant public health challenges. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

From across this tag

9 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 9. The same 9 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