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 1,276–1,300 of 3,083 studies · tagged Biomarkers (page 52 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.

An update on blood-based biomarkers for non-Alzheimer neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2020-04-22

Cerebrospinal fluid analyses and neuroimaging can identify the underlying pathophysiology at the earliest stage of some neurodegenerative disorders, but do not have the scalability needed for population screening. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Application of the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association AD criteria to ADNI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2013-05-03

A large proportion of subjects with AD dementia in ADNI may be categorized more definitively as high-probability AD using the proposed biomarker scheme in the NIA-AA criteria. 4 key findings →

Participants: 211 Evidence: low

Neuroimaging predictors of brain amyloidosis in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2013-08-01

As one of the first attempts to use an imaging technique that does not require amyloid-specific radioligands for identification of individuals with brain amyloidosis, our findings could lead to development of multidisciplinary/multimodality brain amyloidosis biomarkers that are reliable, minimally invasive, and widely available. 3 key findings →

Participants: 62 Evidence: moderate

Importantly, Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio remained unaltered, suggesting that it is more suitable for implementation in clinical workup than individual Aβ peptides. 4 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

CSF phosphorylated tau as an indicator of subsequent tau accumulation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2022-05-26

We evaluated the relationship between baseline CSF p-tau181 and the rate of tau PET change in the temporal meta-ROI and entorhinal cortex (ERC) and how it varied by amyloid level (CSF Aβ42 or amyloid PET) among 143 individuals from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and Mayo Alzheimer Disease Research Center. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 143 Evidence: moderate

CSF biomarkers for Alzheimer disease correlate with cortical brain biopsy findings

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2012-04-18

Amyloid plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau in cortical brain biopsies are reflected by low CSF Aβ42 and high CSF tau and p-tau levels, respectively. 2 key findings →

Participants: 182 Evidence: low

Validation of olfactory deficit as a biomarker of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology. Clinical practice 2017-02-01

Olfactory identification deficit is a useful screening tool for AD-related amnestic disorder, with sensitivity and specificity comparable to other established biomarkers, with benefits such as ease of administration and low cost. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 96 Evidence: moderate

A number of in vivo neurochemistry and neuroimaging techniques, which can reliably assess aspects of physiology, pathology, chemistry, and neuroanatomy, hold promise as biomarkers. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Predicting MCI outcome with clinically available MRI and CSF biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2011-10-12

Incorporating quantitative assessment of learning ability along with vMRI or CSF biomarkers in the clinical workup of MCI can provide critical information on risk of imminent conversion to AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Since the introduction of amyloid imaging nearly 10 years ago, this technique has gained widespread use and acceptance. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Here, we review progress by the Penn Biomarker Core in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) toward developing a pathological cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma biomarker signature for mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) as well as a biomarker profile that predicts conversion of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or normal control subjects to AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Proteomic studies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are instrumental in identifying AD pathways but often focus on single tissues and sporadic AD cases. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations of amyloid beta peptides ending at positions 42 and 40 (Abeta42 and Abeta40, respectively), and total tau (tTau) protein were measured by ELISA in order to compare their accuracy in discriminating patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD, n = 22), non-Alzheimer dementia (nAD, n = 11) and control subjects (CON, n=35). 4 key findings →

Participants: 22 Evidence: low

Neurogranin, a synaptic protein, is associated with memory independent of Alzheimer biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2017-09-22

We analyzed CSF concentrations of neurogranin, β-amyloid (Aβ42), phosphorylated tau (p-tau), and total tau (t-tau) among 132 neurologically normal older adults (mean 64.5, range 55-85), along with bilateral hippocampal volumes and a measure of episodic memory (Auditory Verbal Learning Test, delayed recall). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

CSF biomarkers predict rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2009-10-01

CSF biomarkers amyloid beta 1-42 (Abeta(42)), total tau (tau), and tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p-tau-181) are useful diagnostic markers for Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 151 Evidence: low

The Monotherapy Switzerland/Thailand study (MOST) trial compared monotherapy with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir with continued therapy. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Previous studies reported the value of blood-based biomarkers in predicting Alzheimer disease (AD) progression among individuals with different disease stages. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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