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 2,251–2,275 of 3,083 studies · tagged Biomarkers (page 91 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.

These results demonstrate increased production of the proinflammatory cytokine, TNFalpha and decreased production of the anti-inflammatory cytokine TGFbeta in patients with MCI at risk to develop AD, suggesting a propensity towards inflammation in this patient group and indicating that CNS inflammation is a early hallmark in the pathogenesis of AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 56 Evidence: low

It is not known whether computerized cognitive assessments, like the CogState battery, are sensitive to preclinical cognitive changes or pathology in people at risk for Alzheimer's disease(AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 71 Evidence: low

New insights into atypical Alzheimer's disease in the era of biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2021-03-01

Most patients with Alzheimer's disease present with amnestic problems; however, a substantial proportion, over-represented in young-onset cases, have atypical phenotypes including predominant visual, language, executive, behavioural, or motor dysfunction. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A single dose of solanezumab was generally well tolerated, although infusion reactions similar to those seen with administration of other proteins may occur with higher doses. 2 key findings →

Participants: 54 Evidence: low

Antibody-mediated removal of aggregated β-amyloid (Aβ) is the current, most clinically advanced potential disease-modifying treatment approach for Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Phosphorylation is one of the most prevalent post-translational modifications found in aggregated tau isolated from Alzheimer's disease (AD) patient brains. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neuronal loss is the central issue in Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet no treatment developed so far can halt AD-associated neurodegeneration. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The escalating prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) highlights the urgent need to develop reliable biomarkers for early diagnosis and intervention. 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Phospho-tau protein p-tau181 is a cerebrospinal fluid biomarker for Alzheimer's disease (AD), while p-tau217 is the most sensitive plasma biomarker for cerebral amyloid β (Aβ) load prior to tau pathology in preclinical AD. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The levels of p-tau217 and p-tau231 in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are associated with early amyloid beta (Aß) changes in the brain, while the CSF levels of p-tau205 are foremost related to tau pathology in the later stages of the disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

As plasma biomarkers like p-tau217 move towards clinical use in Alzheimer's disease (AD), it is important to understand how kidney function may influence their accuracy. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Neurological damage is the pathological substrate of permanent disability in various neurodegenerative disorders. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Recent technological advances have improved the sensitivity and specificity of blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

An inverse association may exist between cancers and neurodegenerative diseases, although convenient biomarkers for verifying this inverse association are lacking. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Canine cognitive dysfunction syndrome (CDS) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder in aging dogs and serves as a natural model for Alzheimer's disease in humans. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Dementia is a group of symptoms including memory loss, language difficulties, and other types of cognitive and functional impairments that affects 57 million people worldwide, with the incidence expected to double by 2040. 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