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
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,526–1,550 of 3,569 studies · tagged Biomarkers(page 62 of 143)· 28,580 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; 14,058 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 52 out of 100.·Biomolecules·2022-08-28
To examine whether the type of blood collection tubes affects the quantification of plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease analyzed with a single-molecule array (Simoa), we recruited a healthy cohort (n = 34, 11 males, mean age = 28.7 ± 7.55) and collected plasma in the following tubes: dipotassium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (K2-EDTA), heparin lithium (Li-Hep), and heparin sodium (Na-Hep). 1 key finding →
Plasma biomarkers have shown promising performance in research cohorts in discriminating between different stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
The specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of HTS positivity (HTSpos) were the highest (amyloid PET: 0.930 and 0.870, tau PET: 0.944 and 0.957, respectively), while Cimp and Nimp had a high negative predictive value (NPV) for amyloid PET (negativity) (0.750 and 0.725). 5 key findings →
The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) signature of Alzheimer's disease (AD) includes abnormal levels of amyloid-β 1-42 (Aβ42), total tau (t-Tau) and phosphorylated tau (p-Tau). 1 key finding →
Age acceleration was significantly associated with sex, clinical diagnosis, and levels of eight plasma biomarkers, including P-tau217 levels. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease associated with dementia and is a serious concern for the health of individuals and government health care systems worldwide. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2021-05-04
Plasma phosphorylated tau at threonine-181 (P-tau181) demonstrates promise as an accessible blood-based biomarker specific to Alzheimer's Disease (AD), with levels recently demonstrating high predictive accuracy for AD-relevant pathology. 2 key findings →
β-blockers that easily cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) seem to diminish the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD), hypothetically facilitating waste clearance. 3 key findings →
Numerous imaging variables differed by clinical diagnosis, including hippocampal, amygdalar and inferior lateral ventricular volumes and entorhinal, lingual, inferior parietal and isthmus cingulate cortical thicknesses, at a false discovery rate (FDR)-corrected threshold for significance (analysis of covariance; p < 0.005). 3 key findings →
Frontotemporal lobar degeneration, the neuropathological substrate of frontotemporal dementia (FTD), is characterized by the deposition of protein aggregates, including tau. 4 key findings →
In HC and MCI subjects, FBP PET anterior and posterior cingulate and composite standard uptake value ratios correlated with CSF amyloid beta (Aβ1-42) and tau/Aβ1-42 ratios. 5 key findings →
In regression analyses across the whole study sample adjusted for age, sex, and diagnostic group, there was no relationship between HbA1c or fasting glucose and CSF tau, p-tau 182, or Abeta42 levels. 3 key findings →
At genera and species levels, higher subgingival periodontal dysbiosis was associated with reduced CSF amyloid beta (Aβ)42 (P = 0.02 and 0.01) but not with P-tau. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2017-05-15
The pathogenic relevance in Alzheimer's disease (AD) presents a decrease of cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-ß42 (Aß42) burden and an increase in cerebrospinal fluid total tau (T-tau) levels. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·BMC genomics·2022-01-28
Using the data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), we performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) between 565,373 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and 16 key AD biomarkers from 1,576 subjects at four visits. 5 key findings →
Accurate staging of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology is crucial for therapeutic trials and prognosis, but existing fluid biomarkers lack specificity, especially for assessing tau deposition severity, in amyloid-beta (Aβ)-positive patients. 2 key findings →
10 of the 3,555 studies in this tag that have a study page, 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%),
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 (3.6% 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.