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 1,976–2,000 of 3,083 studies · tagged Biomarkers(page 80 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.
Lower levels of NFL, NG, Aβ42, and t-tau were found in patients with iNPH versus SIVD, while YKL-40 and p-tau were similar in the two diseases. 4 key findings →
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers have been extensively investigated in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) with the aim of a better differential diagnosis, but the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying CSF biomarker changes and the relationship between biomarker levels and clinical variables are still a matter of debate. 3 key findings →
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) often precedes Alzheimer's Dementia (AD), and in a high proportion of individuals affected by MCI, there are already neuropathological processes ongoing that become more evident when patients progress to AD. 3 key findings →
The clinical diagnosis of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) can be supported by several biochemical markers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) such as 14-3-3 proteins and tau protein. 4 key findings →
To improve clinical, neuropsychological and behavioural characterisation of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers beta-amyloid((1-42)) protein (Abeta42), protein tau (tau) and tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (P-tau181) across diagnostic dementia categories, a prospective study was set up. 3 key findings →
CSF levels of apoE2, apoE3, and apoE4 were significantly higher (all nominal P < 10 × 10-5 , false discovery rate < 0.001) and those of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were significantly lower (nominal P = 1.39 × 10-6 , false discovery rate < 0.001) in APOE-ε4 carriers than in noncarriers. 3 key findings →
The amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (ATN) biomarker framework has greatly progressed the diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
We report CSF soluble TREM2 (sTREM2) and CSF chitinase-3-like protein 1 (CHI3L1/YKL-40) as PD biomarkers for the TREM2 agonist hPara.09. 5 key findings →
The overall goal of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is to optimize and validate biomarkers for clinical trials while sharing all data and biofluid samples with the global scientific community. 2 key findings →
As Alzheimer's disease (AD) research advances, tau has emerged as both a critical biomarker and a promising therapeutic target, central to understanding disease mechanisms, tracking progression, and guiding treatment development. 5 key findings →
Concomitant Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology is a frequent event in the context of Lewy body disease (LBD), occurring in approximately half of all cases. 4 key findings →
It might constitute a simple, cost-effective and reproducible in vivo proxy of AD suitable to be adopted worldwide not only in daily clinical practice but also in future experimental trials, to avoid the enrolment of misdiagnosed AD patients. 1 key finding →
c GMP , and not c AMP levels, were significantly lower in the CSF of patients diagnosed with mild AD when compared with nondemented controls. 5 key findings →
The results project substantial cost savings from implementing a blood test for AD pathology within the diagnostic pathway based on modeling results, which future research should confirm with actual data. 4 key findings →
Astrocytosis shows a distinct regional pattern in AD brain compared to fibrillar Aβ, suggesting that different types of astrocytes may be associated with the pathophysiological processes in AD. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·PloS one·2015-05-08
The purpose of the present study was to investigate if cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers of neurodegeneration are associated with cognition in bipolar disorder and healthy controls, respectively. 4 key findings →
These findings suggest that NfL can be used to monitor cognitive decline in aging and Alzheimer's disease and that an attentional control composite may be a better outcome for tracking general neurodegenerative effects on cognition. 3 key findings →
Prevalent LB- and AD-related neurodegenerative pathologies affect a significant proportion of iNPH patients and contribute to cognitive decline (both) and motor impairment (only LB pathology) but do not significantly influence the surgical outcome at 6 months. 5 key findings →
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.