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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 3,276–3,300 of 3,336 studies · tagged Biomarkers(page 132 of 134)· 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)
From OpenAlex; 13,658 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.
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-01-15
In this cross-sectional study (n=272), plasma pTau217/Aβ42 ratio test accuracy was 90% in Veterans without TBI history, but was significantly lower (63-78% accuracy) in Veterans with TBI history, with lowest accuracy in those with greater TBI severity. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-01-29
Untargeted mass spectrometry remains underutilised for blood-based biomarker discovery in dementia research from large cohorts, where affinity-based approaches dominate. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-02-17
a Structured abstract BACKGROUND Over the past couple of decades, the role of infections, as well as the involvement of the immune system, have been highlighted in the development of dementia. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-10-28
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative disease primarily affecting motor neurons but also frequently involving cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-10-24
Alzheimer’s disease is diagnosed after a decade-long phase in which pathology accumulates; current markers show that pathology is present, but not how far it has advanced. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-10-14
CSF DDC reflects nigrostriatal dopaminergic dysfunction, representing a potential quantitative biochemical alternative to DaT-SPECT that might be readily implemented via automated immunoassays. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-04
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow and the glymphatic system are essential for maintaining brain homeostasis, yet the precise mechanisms driving their profound failure in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) remain largely elusive. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-05
Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), predominantly comprised of tau and TDP-43 proteinopathies, is a common cause of early-onset dementia. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-02
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) contains brain derived proteins that can be leveraged as biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-09-29
Apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype is theorised to influence dementia risk partly through effects on blood–brain barrier (BBB) function, but clinical studies examining APOE effects on BBB biomarkers report inconsistent results. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Preprints.org·2026-09-25
The global burden of dementia is heavily concentrated in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet biological diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) relies on positron emission tomography (PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis that are operationally inaccessible in these regions. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-09-14
Genetic variation in APOE , which encodes a lipid transporter apolipoprotein E (apoE), is the strongest risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-09-11
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flows through perivascular spaces (PVSs) surrounding brain vasculature, and impaired flow has been linked to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s. However, the mechanisms driving CSF flow and its oscillatory dynamics remain poorly understood. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-10-09
These findings support MRI-derived LC intensity as a marker of early AD-related processes and suggest that LC intensity may provide complementary information not captured by plasma pTau 217 alone. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-09-10
PVeD reproducibly contextualized associations between plasma pTau217 and PET-defined Alzheimer pathology across cohorts with different participant composition, pTau217 assays, PET tracers, and cognitive measures. 2 key findings →
10 of the 3,322 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 28,180 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.