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 2,151–2,175 of 3,083 studies · tagged Biomarkers (page 87 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.

Treatment options for dementia mainly comprise of symptomatic treatment, as no disease-modifying therapy currently exists that directly reduces the pathology. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Delirium is a complex and multifactorial condition associated with long-term cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

The ideal biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) should detect a fundamental feature of neuropathology and be validated in neuropathologically-confirmed cases; it should have a sensitivity >80% for detecting AD and a specificity of >80% for distinguishing other dementias; it should be reliable, reproducible, non-invasive, simple to perform, and inexpensive.

The use of frozen rather than fresh samples renders higher diagnostic accuracy within a multicentre context. 2 key findings →

Participants: 49 Evidence: low

The association between an AD-like signature using the established biomarkers Aβ42, T-tau, and P-tau with increased levels of NFL provides in vivo evidence of an association between AD and subcortical axonal degeneration in this uniquely large dataset of CSF samples tested for dementia biomarkers. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

We previously demonstrated that PNA5, a novel glycosylated angiotensin 1-7 (Ang-(1-7)) Mas receptor (MasR) agonist peptide, is an effective therapy to rescue cognitive impairment in our preclinical model of VCID. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

A plethora of complex misfolded protein combinations have been found in Alzheimer disease (AD) brains besides the classical pathological hallmarks. 2 key findings →

Participants: 39 Evidence: moderate

Neurofilament light chain (NFL) has been recently introduced as a biomarker of early dementia. 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) is a proxy for regional hypometabolism in Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 149 Evidence: moderate

We demonstrated a moderate positive correlation between PDGFRβ and both total Tau and phosphorylated Tau 181 in cognitively normal individuals. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Down syndrome (DS) is a complex genetic condition due to an additional copy of human chromosome 21, which results in the deregulation of many genes. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Through analytical validation, this assay demonstrated robust performance across multiple lots, operators, and instruments and could be used as a tool for diagnosing AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,091 Evidence: low

With the introduction of the new causal amyloid targeting therapies, the role of biomarker-assisted diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD) has received a further boost. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

There is accumulating evidence suggesting that changes in brain perfusion are present long before the clinical symptoms of Alzheimer's disease (AD), perhaps even before amyloid-β accumulation or brain atrophy. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The construct of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been proposed to identify patients at risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the pre-clinical stage. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Several parameters representing the clinical diversity of Parkinson's disease (PD), including severity, phenotypes, cognitive decline, anxiety and depression were analyzed to examine the link with interleukin-1β (IL-1β), the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA), IL-6, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα) and also to determine the relationship between levels of these factors in serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Plasma and serum biochemical markers proposed for Alzheimer disease (AD) are based on pathophysiologic processes such as amyloid plaque formation [amyloid beta-protein (A beta), A beta autoantibodies, platelet amyloid precursor protein (APP) isoforms], inflammation (cytokines), oxidative stress (vitamin E, isoprostanes), lipid metabolism (apolipoprotein E, 24S-hydroxycholesterol), and vascular disease [homocysteine, lipoprotein (a)]. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

9 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 9. The same 9 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