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 1,101–1,125 of 3,336 studies · tagged Biomarkers (page 45 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)

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.

Using a targeted proteomics approach, we confirmed previous findings for a subset of markers, defined longitudinal performance of our panel of markers, and established a flexible proteomics method for robust multiplexed analyses. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

GFAP may be an early AD biomarker increasing before p-tau181 and NfL and the effect modifying role of cardiovascular health should be considered in biomarker risk stratification. 2 key findings →

Participants: 768 Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau181 had correlations with broader cognitive domains, suggesting its potential as a promising clinical-relevant blood-based biomarker. 2 key findings →

Participants: 320 Evidence: moderate

Plasma tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p-tau181) predicts Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology with high accuracy in the general population. 2 key findings →

Participants: 366 Evidence: low

Plasma and CSF neurofilament light: Relation to longitudinal neuroimaging and cognitive measures

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 2019-06-10

Elevated baseline plasma NfL is a prognostic marker of cognitive decline and neuroimaging measures of neurodegeneration, and has similar effect sizes to baseline CSF NfL. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Plasma NfL is a useful prognostic biomarker for PD, predicting clinical conversion to mild cognitive impairment or dementia. © 2021 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

These findings support the use of plasma Aβ42/40 ratios as surrogate biomarkers of cortical Aβ deposition and enrichment tools, reducing the number of subjects submitted to invasive tests and, consequently, recruitment costs in clinical trials targeting cognitively normal individuals. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

The lack of readily available biomarkers is a significant hindrance toward progressing to effective therapeutic and preventative strategies for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Over the past several years, there has been a surge in blood biomarker studies examining the value of plasma or serum neurofilament light (NfL) as a biomarker of neurodegeneration for Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Serum beta-synuclein changes differ from those of NfL and p-tau181 and are strongly related to AD, most likely reflecting temporal synaptic degeneration. 2 key findings →

Participants: 374 Evidence: moderate

Abnormal plasma Aβ42/40 ratio identified older adult groups with lower memory scores, higher dementia risks, and higher ADRD biomarker levels, with potential implications for population screening. 2 key findings →

Participants: 847 Evidence: moderate

These findings show how online testing can now be deployed in patients with AD to measure cognitive function effectively and related to blood biomarkers of the disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 46 Evidence: low

The role of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative Genetics Core is to facilitate the investigation of genetic influences on disease onset and trajectory as reflected in structural, functional, and molecular imaging changes; fluid biomarkers; and cognitive status. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Amyloid and tau imaging biomarkers explain cognitive decline from late middle-age

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2020-01-01

This study investigated differences in retrospective cognitive trajectories between amyloid and tau PET biomarker stratified groups in initially cognitively unimpaired participants sampled from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

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.

↑ 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 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed