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 2,076–2,100 of 3,083 studies · tagged Biomarkers (page 84 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.

High CSF p-tau and low ratios of Aβ(1-42)/Aβ(1-40) and Aβ(1-42)/Aβ(1-38), respectively, were specific for AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 25 Evidence: low

PDGFRβ levels were similar in CAA patients and controls (P = .78) and in aMCI/AD clinical phenotype and controls (P = .91). aMCI/AD patients with an AD+ biomarker profile (A+T+[N+]) had increased PDGFRβ levels compared to (A-T-[N-]) controls (P = .006). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In women we found a significant correlation between CSF amyloid-beta (Aβ1-42) and several subtests measuring delayed recall. 3 key findings →

Participants: 79 Evidence: low

EEG slowing and cerebrospinal fluid tau levels in patients with cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Neuroreport 1998-01-05

We explored the relationship between cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tau levels as indirect markers of tau-related pathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and EEG slowing, a typical neurophysiological finding in the disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

Earlier studies have shown elevated levels of tau protein and decreased levels of amyloid beta42 in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 17 Evidence: low

CSF-tau and CSF-Abeta(1-42) in posterior cortical atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders 2010-07-01

The Abeta(1-42), T-tau and P-tau(181) levels in PCA patients differed significantly (p < 0.02) from those in healthy controls but were indistinguishable from subjects with a clinical diagnosis of AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 34 Evidence: low

The main objective was to investigate the acetylcholinesterase E (AChE) activity in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with three common dementia disorders. 3 key findings →

Participants: 17 Evidence: low

Vascular factors are thought to contribute to the development of disease pathology in neurodegenerative dementia such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 47 Evidence: low

Potential cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) markers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) include tau protein, the 42 amino-acid form of amyloid beta (amyloid beta(1-42)) and apolipoprotein E (apoE). 2 key findings →

Participants: 26 Evidence: low

The two most frequently examined biomarkers in the diagnosis of dementia are cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tau and beta-amyloid(1-42) (Abeta(1-42)). 4 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Tau protein concentrations were measured in the CSF of 23 patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT), 36 patients with multi-infarct dementia (MID), and 23 control subjects. 2 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

For the reproducibility, identical P-values and slope estimates were found with both digital biomarkers and neuropsychological test measures between the previous and current studies. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

We identify novel genome-wide significant associations between DNA variants in TMEM106B and CSF levels of NfL, and between CPOX and YKL-40. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

With the recent approval by the FDA of the first disease-modifying drug for Alzheimer's Disease (AD), personalized medicine will be increasingly important for appropriate management and counseling of patients with AD and those at risk. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

There is little information on the dynamics of BDNF in the CSF in the continuum between healthy aging, MCI and AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 128 Evidence: low

CSF YKL-40 and chitotriosidase levels are increased in individuals with clinical FTD syndromes, particularly due to AD pathology. 4 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Rapamycin is not detectable in the CSF before or after treatment, but several Alzheimer's disease and inflammatory biomarkers increase after treatment. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

As novel, anti-amyloid therapies have become more widely available, access to timely and accurate diagnosis has become integral to ensuring optimal treatment of patients with early-stage Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Experimental data suggest that the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) dynamic is involved in the clearance of beta-amyloid, a key event in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: low

Plasma p-tau181 levels were influenced by the presence of underlying AD pathology, independently from the cognitive status and were highly accurate in differentiating SCD-MCI patients who were carriers of AD pathology from non-carriers. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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