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 826–850 of 3,083 studies · tagged Biomarkers (page 34 of 124) · 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)

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.

Identification and validation of novel cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for staging early Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. PloS one 2011-01-12

These six markers describe six clinicopathological stages from cognitive normalcy to mild dementia, including stages defined by increased risk of cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Participants: 24 Evidence: moderate

Our results indicate that altered tau and Abeta42 concentrations may be detectable in subjects who are clinically diagnosed as having MCI but demonstrate the pathological changes of AD. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 28 Evidence: moderate

CSF levels of YKL-40 may have utility for discriminating between cognitively normal individuals and patients with MCI or AD. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Our study indicates that EEG can be used as a useful screening tool for the diagnosis and disease progression evaluation of MCI and AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 890 Evidence: low

Reliable biomarkers of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are currently lacking. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

Preclinical AD predicts decline in memory and executive functions in subjective complaints

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2013-09-18

We assessed whether preclinical Alzheimer disease (AD) based on CSF biomarkers at baseline predicts decline in cognitive functioning as measured by repeated neuropsychological tests for 4 cognitive domains in patients with subjective complaints. 4 key findings →

Participants: 132 Evidence: moderate

Blood pressure variability is an emerging risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, but mechanisms remain unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Microglial Reactivity Correlates with Presynaptic Loss Independent of β-Amyloid and Tau

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2024-02-14

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) and progranulin (PGRN) are critical regulators of microglia activation and can be detected in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 65 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers and Subjective Cognitive Decline Among Hispanic and/or Latino Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA network open 2025-09-02

Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) may be an early indicator of Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD), yet its association with plasma biomarkers remains unclear among middle-aged and older adults (aged 50-86 years). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,712 Evidence: moderate

Plasma-based biomarkers would be potential biomarkers for early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) because they are more available and cost-effective than cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or neuroimaging. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 185 Evidence: moderate

DTI-ALPS values were significantly lower compared to HC in both DLB (Estimate = -0.084 [-0.14 to -0.03], p = 0.004) and MCI-LB (Estimate = -0.058 [-0.11 to -0.002], p = 0.047) DTI-ALPS was also significantly associated with both baseline (t[147] = 2.22, p = 0.028) and longitudinal decline (t[127] = 2.41,p = 0.017) in cognitive score. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 32 Evidence: moderate

We recruited 210 participants; 205 (66.8% male; aged 66.4±11.1 years) had useable data. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 210 Evidence: moderate

Collectively, plasma biomarker findings in the low p-tau217 subgroup were more robust than in the mITT population. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

Longitudinal CSF and MRI biomarkers improve the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2005-08-26

The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is limited because it is based on non-specific behavioral and neuroimaging findings. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Such findings challenge the proposed sequence and suggest that Aβ-independent precursors underlie AD-typical neurodegenerative patterns. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 29 Evidence: moderate

The high accuracies for Aβ pathology and future AD dementia using fully automated instruments are promising for implementing plasma biomarkers in clinical trials and clinical routine. 2 key findings →

Participants: 920 Evidence: low

Predicting amyloid PET and tau PET stages with plasma biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2023-05-01

We used multinomial regression models to estimate discrimination [concordance (C) statistics] among three amyloid PET stages (low, intermediate, high), four tau PET stages (Braak 0, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6) and a combined amyloid and tau PET stage (none/low versus intermediate/high severity) using plasma biomarkers as predictors separately within unimpaired and impaired individuals. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,136 Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 3,069 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.

↑ 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