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 26–50 of 59 studies in Biomarkers · tagged Digital Tools (page 2 of 3) · 30,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 59 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.

Saito et al developed a novel amyloid precursor protein (APP) knock-in mouse model (APP NL-G-F ) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) to overcome the problem of overexpression of APP in available transgenic mouse models. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

We have shown that chronically administered cannabinoid showed marked beneficial effects concomitant with inflammation reduction and increased Aβ clearance. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The combination of the scaffolds of the cholinesterase inhibitor huprine Y and the antioxidant capsaicin results in compounds with nanomolar potencies toward human acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) that retain or improve the antioxidant properties of capsaicin. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Pathological amino-acid substitutions in the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and chemical γ-secretase modulators affect the processing of APP by the γ-secretase complex and the production of the amyloid-beta peptide Aβ42, the accumulation of which is considered causative of Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This demonstrates that an AD-like APP processing, yielding to levels of APP, βCTF and Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio similar to those observed in AD patients, are sufficient to rapidly trigger early steps of the amyloidogenic and Tau pathways in vivo. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

We propose that there is a reciprocal relationship between APP-CT positioning relative to the membrane and PS1 conformation, suggesting that factors that modulate either APP positioning in the membrane or PS1 conformation could be exploited therapeutically. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The results suggest that Tph2 inactivation influences AβPP processing, at least in the hippocampus, although levels of Aβ are unchanged. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cleavage of the amyloid precursor protein's (APP) transmembrane domain (TMD) by γ-secretase is a crucial step in the aetiology of Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The search for new therapeutic approaches to Alzheimer disease (AD) is a major goal in medicine and society, also due to the impressive economic and social costs of this disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Monitoring the ratio of 40- and 42-residue amyloid β peptides (i.e., Aβ40 and Aβ42) in human plasma is considered one of the hallmarks of detection of the early stage of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our objective was to predict HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND) in HIV-infected people using plasma neuronal extracellular vesicle (nEV) proteins, clinical data, and machine learning. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

These findings provided evidence that neuroinflammation might be involved in the development and progression of cognitive deficits in APP/PS1 mice, suggesting novel intervention and prevention strategies for AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

An essential feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is implicated in brain energy metabolic impairment that is considered underlying pathogenesis of cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The accumulation of aggregated amyloid-β (Aβ) in amyloid plaques is a neuropathological hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Hypertension (HTN) doubles the risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but the mechanisms remain unclear. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A growing body of epidemiological evidence suggests that fruit and vegetable juices containing various phenolic compounds can reduce the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mutations in the transmembrane domain of APP altering gamma-secretase specificity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Biochemistry 1997-12-01

Alzheimer's disease (AD) beta-amyloid peptide (Abeta and betaA4) is derived from the amyloid precursor protein (APP) by the subsequent action of the so-far unidentified beta- and gamma-secretases. gamma-secretase, which generates the C-terminus of Abeta, cleaves within the transmembrane domain of APP, preferentially after Abeta-residue 40 (Abeta 40) but also after residue 42 (Abeta 42). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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