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 2,301–2,325 of 3,083 studies · tagged Biomarkers(page 93 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.
This article presents recommendations, based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method, for the clinical application of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-β1-42, tau, and phosphorylated tau in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with dementia. 2 key findings →
In EDAR and DESCRIPA test data, inclusion of a case/control PGRS was no more predictive of Aβ, and a combined Aβ and tau endpoint than the basic models (accuracies of 66.0%, and 73.3% respectively). 5 key findings →
As our knowledge about the biology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) expands and we recognize the significance of early intervention for effective treatment, there is a shift in focus toward detecting the disease at an early stage. 5 key findings →
This paper introduces a new deep learning-assisted offline smartphone platform for early AD screening, offering rapid disease detection in low-resource areas. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Biosensors·2025-02-11
Monitoring and assessing the progression of symptoms in neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, are critical for improving patient outcomes. 5 key findings →
Recent studies have supported a role for the proteolytic cleavage of apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) as a potential mechanism for the enhanced dementia risk associated with Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
The molecules released into CSF, namely APOE2 for any dementia, APOE2 and Siglec-3 for AD, APOE2 for vascular dementia, and APOE2 for DLB, might be potential biomarkers. 3 key findings →
Late-onset Alzheimer's disease is the leading cause of dementia worldwide, accounting for a growing burden of morbidity and mortality. 5 key findings →
The default mode network (DMN) is intricately linked with processes such as self-referential thinking, episodic memory recall, goal-directed cognition, self-projection, and theory of mind. 5 key findings →
An extensive exploration of lacrimal fluid molecular biomarkers in understanding and diagnosing a spectrum of ocular and systemic diseases is presented. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Stroke·2024-01-18
Accumulating evidence supports a link between sleep disorders, disturbed sleep, and adverse brain health, ranging from stroke to subclinical cerebrovascular disease to cognitive outcomes, including the development of Alzheimer disease and Alzheimer disease-related dementias. 1 key finding →
Though usually described as isolated models, neurodegenerative diseases exist in a significant proportion of cases as mixed pathologies, particularly in older adults. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Radiology·1991-02-01
The authors blindly reviewed the charts of 20 patients with normal-pressure hydrocephalus (a disease of unknown cause characterized radiologically as chronic communicating hydrocephalus and clinically by gait apraxia, dementia, and incontinence) who had undergone creation of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. 2 key findings →
Lecanemab is a humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to soluble Aβ aggregate species, while demonstrating low affinity for Aβ monomer. 2 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.