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 1–25 of 889 studies in Biomarkers · tagged Brain Biology (page 1 of 36) · 31,380 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.

What “Biomarkers” covers

Biomarkers — Measurable signals in blood, brain scans or spinal fluid that can indicate Alzheimer's changes.

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.

A trial of gantenerumab or solanezumab in dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 83 out of 100. Nature medicine 2021-06-21

Dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease (DIAD) causes predictable biological changes decades before the onset of clinical symptoms, enabling testing of interventions in the asymptomatic and symptomatic stages to delay or slow disease progression. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Identifying Aβ-positive individuals, irrespective of the measurement technique employed (CSF or PET), enables the detection of the most at-risk population before disease onset, or at least at a mild stage. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 7,793 Evidence: high

Phosphorylated tau (p-tau) species (153, 181, 217, 231) increased early in preclinical AD but were reduced with gantenerumab-mediated Aβ plaque reduction. 5 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 50 Evidence: high

Plasma Aβ40 values might not distinguish between PET (+) and PET (-) people. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,047 Evidence: high

A total of 17 articles were identified. Plasma Aβ42/40 ratio was inversely correlated with aPET positivity r = -0.48 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.65--0.31). 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 17 Evidence: high

Daily oral DHA supplementation (2 g/day) for 24 months may improve cognitive function and change blood biomarker-related Aβ-mediated autophagy in people with MCI. 2 key findings →

Participants: 120 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease neuropathology positivity was present in 86 (6%) participants based on p-tau217/Aβ42, 196 (15%) based on Aβ42/40, and 48 (4%) based on p-tau217, and was associated with worse performance on processing speed (standardised cognitive difference comparing Alzheimer's disease neuropathology positive to negative for Aβ42/40, p-tau217, and p-tau217/Aβ42 -0·54 to -0·25; p values 0·0001 to 0·0048) and executive function (-0·42 to -0·19; p values 0·0070 to 0·049). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,500 Evidence: moderate

Blood Astrocyte Biomarkers in Alzheimer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Neurology 2024-07-10

We demonstrated significant elevations in blood GFAP and YKL-40 levels in patients on the AD continuum compared with CU individuals. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 3,366 Evidence: high

Neuroinflammation is a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and both positive and negative associations of individual inflammation-related markers with brain structure and cognitive function have been described. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 295 Evidence: moderate

Sleep deprivation and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Sleep 2018-05-01

Study objectives To investigate the cumulative effect of five consecutive nights of partial sleep deprivation (PSD) on a panel of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in healthy adults. 1 key finding →

Participants: 13 Evidence: high

The distribution of tau pathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD) shows remarkable inter-individual heterogeneity, including hemispheric asymmetry. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 102 Evidence: moderate

Both plasma p-tau181 and GFAP appear to reflect disease progression, as indicated by 7T MR-derived brain changes which are not limited to areas known to be affected by tau pathology and neuroinflammation measured by MRS myo-inositol, respectively. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 127 Evidence: moderate

Serum GFAP levels correlate with astrocyte reactivity, post-mortem brain atrophy and neurofibrillary tangles

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Brain 2024-05-03

The main findings demonstrated an association between serum GFAP level and post-mortem tau pathology (β = 12.85; P < 0.001) that was independent of amyloid deposits (β = 13.23; P = 0.02). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 139 Evidence: moderate

These two conclusions support a dynamic biomarker model in which Alzheimer's disease is characterized first by the appearance of amyloidosis and later by tauopathy, with tauopathy being the proteinopathy associated with clinical symptoms. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,343 Evidence: moderate

Blood exosomes, which are extracellular vesicles secreted by living cells into the circulating blood, are regarded as a relatively noninvasive novel tool for monitoring brain physiology and disease states. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Plasma biomarker profiles in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2023-03-01

Emerging plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease might be non-invasive tools to trace early Alzheimer's disease-related abnormalities such as the accumulation of amyloid-beta peptides, neurofibrillary tau tangles, glial activation and neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 164 Evidence: moderate

Modulating deposition of Aβ-containing plaques in the brain may be beneficial in treating Alzheimer's disease. β-site amyloid precursor protein cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) inhibitors have been shown to reduce Aβ in plasma and CSF in healthy volunteers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Cognition ranged from high to early cognitive decline (median Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] score = 26). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 60 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events