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 1–25 of 87 studies in Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine (page 1 of 4) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

Florbetaben scans were assessed visually and quantitatively, and results were compared with amyloid plaque scores. 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 82 Evidence: low

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

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate

These factors should be investigated in longitudinal studies for their role in detecting onset of symptoms in AD. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 749 Evidence: moderate

Of the reference regions used, subcortical white matter, cerebellar white matter, and the pons, alone or in combination, generated the largest effect sizes. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

In the cross-sectional study, CLs in both the Aβ- and the Aβ+ groups were impacted by the FWHM of the reconstruction method. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 89 Evidence: moderate

The goal of this paper was to evaluate the in vivo kinetics of the novel tau-specific PET radioligand 18 F-AV-1451 in cognitively healthy control (HC) and Alzheimer disease (AD) subjects, using reference region analyses. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 43 Evidence: moderate

Standardized automated analysis of (18)F-FDG PET scans may provide an objective and sensitive support to the clinical diagnosis in early dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 548 Evidence: low

In contrast to no change in global cortical SUVR in the CU- and CU+ groups during the 2-y period, global cortical SUVR increased by 0.06 (2.9%) in the MCI+ group and 0.19 (8.0%) in the DEM+ group at follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 107 Evidence: moderate

PERSI showed superior test-retest reproducibility (1.84%) and group separation ability (cross-sectional Cohen d = 9.45; longitudinal Cohen d = 2.34) compared with other reference regions. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 215 Evidence: moderate

An (18)F-labeled PET amyloid-beta (Abeta) imaging agent could facilitate the clinical evaluation of late-life cognitive impairment by providing an objective measure for Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 16 Evidence: low

This study suggests that information obtained from evaluating a subgroup of AD or MCI subject using second-generation TSPO tracers can be translated to the entire AD and MCI population. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 798 Evidence: moderate

The advent of PET ligands that bind tau pathology has enabled the quantification and visualization of tau pathology in aging and in Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Overall visual ratings showed complete concordance between radiotracers for both the medial temporal lobe and the neocortex. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In cohort 1, PVEC increased the effect on AD-versus-HC discrimination from a Cohen d value of 1.68 to 2.0 for composite SUVRs and from 0.04 to 1.04 for mesial temporal cortex SUVRs. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

When compared with the other groups, AD patients demonstrated significantly higher SUVRs (P Conclusion (18)F-florbetaben had high sensitivity for AD, clearly distinguished patients with FTLD from AD, and provided results comparable to those reported with (11)C-Pittsburgh Compound B in a variety of neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

We observed good convergence among the 4 Good convergence was obtained among several methods for determining an optimal cutoff for 18 F-AZD4694 PET positivity. 3 key findings →

Participants: 22 Evidence: low

Neither fibrillar nor nonfibrillar Aβ content alone sufficed to explain the Aβ PET findings in either AD model. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Tau IQ successfully calculated global tau load (Tau L ) in all 791 scans analyzed (range, -3.5% to 185.2%; mean ± SD, 23% ± 20.5%) with a nonzero additional local tau component being required in 31% of all scans (cognitively normal [CN], 22%; mild cognitive impairment [MCI], 35%; dementia, 72%). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 615 Evidence: moderate

(18)F-FDG PET of cerebral glucose metabolism is a valuable diagnostic tool for the prediction of clinical outcome in individual MCI patients. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate

The correlation between white and gray matter disappeared after partial-volume correction in 11 C-PIB ( r 2 = 0) but persisted for 18 F-flortaucipir ( r 2 = 0.27), demonstrating that the correlation between white and gray matter signal in 18 F-flortaucipir is not solely due to partial-volume effects. 4 key findings →

Participants: 139 Evidence: low

Imaging of amyloid deposition using PET has been available in research studies for 2 decades and has been approved for clinical use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and other regulatory agencies around the world. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

An acquisition protocol using time windows of 0-30 and 120-140 min with appropriate interpolation of the missing time points provided the best compromise between patient comfort and quantification accuracy. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

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

Increased (11)C-DED binding throughout the brain of the MCI (11)C-PIB+ patients potentially suggests that astrocytosis is an early phenomenon in AD development. 2 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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