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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,601–1,625 of 3,083 studies · tagged Biomarkers(page 65 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)
From OpenAlex; 13,259 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.
These findings suggest that although WMH are primarily related to systemic vascular risk and neurodegeneration (i.e., t-tau), AD-specific pathways may contribute to the formation of WMH in a regionally-specific manner, with neurofibrillary tangles (i.e., p-tau) playing a role in temporal WMHs and amyloid (i.e., Aβ 42/Aβ 40) in parietal WMHs. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2017-07-11
A connection between dementias and blood-brain barrier (BBB) dysfunction has been suggested, but previous studies have yielded conflicting results. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·PloS one·2015-08-13
A major difference in the revised diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the incorporation of biomarkers to support a clinical diagnosis and allow the identification of preclinical AD due to AD neuropathological processes. 5 key findings →
This study tests the hypothesis that GM and mediators of the microbiota-gut-brain axis (MGBA) are associated with the amyloid cascade in sporadic AD. 5 key findings →
Inflammatory markers have been shown to predict neurocognitive outcomes in aging adults; however, the degree to which peripheral markers mirror the central nervous system remains unknown. 5 key findings →
The present data indicate that CSF NfL and t-tau levels reflect distinct pathophysiological mechanisms of neurodegeneration and support the clinical use of NfL as a fast screening biomarker for the differential diagnosis of atypical/rapidly progressive NDs. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Biomedicines·2019-12-09
: Despite all scientific efforts and many protracted and expensive clinical trials, no new drug has been approved by FDA for treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) since 2003. 5 key findings →
It has been well documented that neurotrophins, including brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), are severely affected in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but their administration faces a myriad of technical challenges. 4 key findings →
Several recent research studies show high performance of blood biomarkers to identify Alzheimer's disease also in the pre-dementia mild cognitive impairment (MCI) stage, but data from the routine clinical care memory clinic setting are needed. 1 key finding →
Three-hundred seventy nine participants underwent blood draw (71.9 ± 7.8 years old, 60.2% female, 57% Hispanic of which 88% were Cuban or South American) and 240 completed Aβ-PET. 1 key finding →
Plasma phosphorylated threonine 181 of tau (pTau181) and amyloid beta (Aβ) are biomarkers for differential diagnosis and preclinical detection of Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2013-11-13
The relationship between PP and CSF biomarkers is age-dependent and observed only in participants in the fifth and sixth decades of life. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1998-01-01
The analysis of 14-3-3 protein in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was shown to be highly sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). 1 key finding →
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.
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 27,780 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.