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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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.
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 2,651–2,675 of 3,569 studies · tagged Biomarkers(page 107 of 143)· 28,580 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)
From OpenAlex; 14,058 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.
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.
Our findings suggest that VILIP-1 may play a role in the AD pathophysiology and is a good candidate for dynamic biomarker of AD, although this issue requires further investigation. 3 key findings →
Plasma amyloid β-42 (Aβ42) and Aβ42/Aβ40 are increasingly recognized as biomarkers for dementia, with low levels indicating increased risk. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of cognitive decline worldwide, occurring in about 10% of people older than 65 years. 2 key findings →
Serum NGAL levels are increased in DS and associated with distinct species of Aβ depending on the progression of dementia as diagnosed by baseline and follow-up clinical assessments. 5 key findings →
We identified the feasibility of a blood-based biomarker approach in AD diagnostics though the results warrant validation in large-scale studies. 3 key findings →
Closing this gap will require the introduction of high-performing blood tests, greater reliance on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing, and expansion of positron emission tomography (PET) capacity. 1 key finding →
Red blood cells (RBCs) are characterized by a remarkable elasticity, which allows them to undergo very large deformation when passing through small vessels and capillaries. 2 key findings →
A regular sleep-wake cycle plays a positive function that preserves synaptic plasticity and brain activity from neuropathological injuries. 4 key findings →
South Korea's healthcare infrastructure requires more preparation for the introduction of a disease-modifying therapy, with the primary capacity limitation being the low number of dementia specialists. 1 key finding →
Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) function declines with age and is associated with brain ageing and the progression of age-related neurological conditions. 2 key findings →
Baseline data are publicly available; treatment data and biological samples, including baseline and treatment-related blood-based biomarker data will become available in accordance with our original trial agreement and subsequently developed Collaboration for Alzheimer's Prevention principles. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2002-03-01
The aim of the present study was to investigate, in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), and vascular dementia (VAD), patterns of local release of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta), two cytokines having a pivotal role in hypoxia-induced angiogenesis. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2016-08-13
Immune privilege of the central nervous system (CNS) has been ascribed to the presence of a blood-brain barrier and the lack of lymphatic vessels within the CNS parenchyma. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a devastating neurodegenerative disorder characterized by extracellular amyloid β (Aβ) and intraneuronal tau protein aggregations. 5 key findings →
Human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), produced by the choroid plexus and secreted into the brain ventricles and subarachnoid space, plays critical roles in intra-cerebral transport and the biophysical and immune protection of the brain. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Biological psychiatry·2009-03-06
The study demonstrates a moderate linear negative association between cerebral amyloid plaque load and CSF Abeta42 levels in AD patients in vivo and suggests possible regional differences of the association. 3 key findings →
10 of the 3,555 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.
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%),
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 (3.6% 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.