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 151–175 of 194 studies in Genetics · tagged Biomarkers (page 7 of 8) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 194 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Genetics” covers

Genetics — Inherited risk: APOE and the other risk genes, and what they do and don't tell you.

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.

Proteomic identification of nitrated proteins in Alzheimer's disease brain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of neurochemistry 2003-06-01

Nitration of tyrosine in biological conditions represents a pathological event that is associated with several neurodegenerative diseases, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

4-hydroxynonenal as a bioactive marker of pathophysiological processes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Molecular aspects of medicine 2003-08-01

The review is focused on the currently major aspect of 4-hydroxynonenal (HNE) research--studies that combine biological activities of the aldehyde together with the methods of its identification in cells and tissues. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The top-down approach to proteomics offers compelling advantages due to the potential to provide complete characterization of protein sequence and post-translational modifications. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

By comparing the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteome between Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients and controls, it may be possible to identify proteins that play a role in the disease process and thus to study the pathogenesis of AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Aberrant expression of peroxiredoxin subtypes in neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Brain research 2003-03-01

An increasing body of evidence indicates that oxidative stress and damage play a role in the pathogenesis of a number of diseases associated with neurodegeneration, including Down syndrome (DS), Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Pick's disease (PD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Acrolein and 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal (HNE) are byproducts of lipid peroxidation and are thought to play central roles in various traumatic injuries and disease states that involve cellular oxidative stress, for example, spinal cord trauma, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The distribution analysis of (essential, beneficial, or toxic) metals (e.g., Cu, Fe, Zn, Pb, and others), metalloids, and non-metals in biological tissues is of key interest in life science. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Numerous studies have shown that neuronal lipids are highly susceptible to oxidative stress including in those brain areas directly involved in the neurodegenerative process of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mining biomarkers in human sera using proteomic tools

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Proteomics 2004-01-01

One of the major difficulties in mining low abundance biomarkers from serum or plasma is due to the fact that a small number of proteins such as albumin, alpha2-macroglobulin, transferrin, and immunoglobulins, may represent as much as 80% of the total serum protein. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Proteomics in Alzheimer's disease: insights into potential mechanisms of neurodegeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of neurochemistry 2003-09-01

Proteomics involves the identification of unknown proteins following their separation, often using two-dimensional electrophoresis, digestion of particular proteins of interest by trypsin, determination of the molecular weight of the resulting peptides, and database searching to make the identification of the proteins. 4 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events