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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 876–900 of 2,814 studies · tagged Biomarkers(page 36 of 113)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology·2010-07-01
Unlike the CSF biomarkers evaluated, changes in serial structural MRI are correlated with concurrent change on general cognitive and functional indices in impaired subjects, track with clinical disease stage, and are influenced by APOE genotype. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-12-01
An a priori defined cutoff value of p-tau(231) yields relatively stable results across centers, suggesting a good feasibility of a standard criterion of p-tau(231) for the prediction of Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology·2003-02-01
The current study suggests that lower Abeta 42 levels reflect neuropathologic processes implicated in amyloid-related pathologies, such as NP and CAA. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology and therapy·2022-03-14
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is prevalent throughout the world and is the leading cause of dementia in older individuals (aged ≥ 65 years). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2000-01-01
Mean plasma Abeta40 levels were higher in the AD group than in controls (P = .005), but there was substantial overlap; Abeta42 levels were similar between the groups. 4 key findings →
Several potential disease-modifying drugs for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have failed to show any effect on disease progression in clinical trials, conceivably because the AD subjects are already too advanced to derive clinical benefit from treatment and because diagnosis based on clinical criteria alone introduces a high misdiagnosis rate. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology·2008-10-29
Tau form ratio was significantly reduced in patients with PSP (0.504 +/- 0.284) when compared to age-matched controls (0.989 +/- 0.343), and to patients with other neurodegenerative conditions (range = 0.899-1.215). 2 key findings →
As a result, our combined method achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AU-ROC) curve of 98.33, 93.59, 96.83, 94.64, 96.43, and 95.24% for AD vs. MCIs subjects which are high relative to single modality results and other state-of-the-art approaches. 2 key findings →
The findings suggest that GPS driving may serve as an effective and accurate digital biomarker for identifying preclinical AD among older adults. 2 key findings →
Precision medicine for Alzheimer's disease (AD) necessitates the development of personalized, reproducible, and neuroscientifically interpretable biomarkers, yet despite remarkable advances, few such biomarkers are available. 1 key finding →
Digital biomarker prognostic models can be a useful tool to assist large-scale population screening for the early detection of cognitive impairment and patient monitoring over time. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology·1998-01-01
Patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) have elevations of fasting plasma insulin that are hypothesized to be associated with disrupted brain insulin metabolism. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2021-08-01
Patients with isolated rapid-eye-movement sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) are commonly regarded as being in the early stages of a progressive neurodegenerative disease involving α-synuclein pathology, such as Parkinson's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, or multiple system atrophy. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·PloS one·2014-05-05
The discovery and reliable detection of markers for neurodegenerative diseases have been complicated by the inaccessibility of the diseased tissue--such as the inability to biopsy or test tissue from the central nervous system directly. 2 key findings →
By fitting Cox proportional hazards models, we find that baseline model stage is a significant risk factor for conversion from both mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease (P = 2.06 × 10(-7)) and cognitively normal to mild cognitive impairment (P = 0.033). 2 key findings →
In Alzheimer's disease (AD), tau phosphorylation in the brain and its subsequent release into cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood is a dynamic process that changes during disease evolution. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology·2011-11-01
Both low and high body mass index (BMI) has been associated with cognitive impairment and dementia risk, including Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers have been used to increase the evidence of underlying Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →
10 of the 2,804 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 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.