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 72 studies with an author at University of Gothenburg (SE) · tagged Early Stage (page 1 of 3) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 72 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.

An unresolved question for the understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology is why a significant percentage of amyloid-β (Aβ)-positive cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals do not develop detectable downstream tau pathology and, consequently, clinical deterioration. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,016 Evidence: moderate

Discriminative Accuracy of Plasma Phospho-tau217 for Alzheimer Disease vs Other Neurodegenerative Disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. JAMA 2020-08-01

Mean age was 83.5 (SD, 8.5) years in cohort 1, 69.1 (SD, 10.3) years in cohort 2, and 35.8 (SD, 10.7) years in cohort 3; 38% were women in cohort 1, 51% in cohort 2, and 57% in cohort 3. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 301 Evidence: moderate

Whilst cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and positron emission tomography (PET) biomarkers for amyloid-β (Aβ) and tau pathologies are accurate for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), their broad implementation in clinical and trial settings are restricted by high cost and limited accessibility. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,000 Evidence: moderate

Plasma phosphorylated tau181 (P-tau181) might be increased in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but its usefulness for differential diagnosis and prognosis is unclear. 2 key findings →

Participants: 589 Evidence: moderate

Plasma Phosphorylated Tau 217 to Identify Preclinical Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-11-01

Participants had a mean (SD) age of 66.9 (9.9) years; 971 (33.3%) were Aβ positive by either CSF or PET, 1667 (57.2%) were women, and 1108 (38.1%) carried at least 1 APOE ε4 allele. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,916 Evidence: high

We found that the mass spectrometry-based p-tau217 (p-tau217WashU) exhibited significantly better performance than all other plasma p-tau biomarkers when detecting abnormal Aβ status [area under curve (AUC) = 0.947; Pdiff 0.09), but higher compared with AUC of p-tau231UGOT, p-tau181Lilly, p-tau181UGOT, p-tau181Fuji and p-tau181Splex (AUCrange 0.642-0.813; Pdiff ≤ 0.029). 5 key findings →

Participants: 135 Evidence: low

A combination of plasma phospho-tau (P-tau) and other accessible biomarkers might provide accurate prediction about the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 340 Evidence: low

We evaluated the performance of CSF biomarkers for predicting risk of clinical decline and conversion to dementia in non-demented patients with cognitive symptoms. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 619 Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau217 is a prognostic marker for identifying individuals who will develop cognitive impairment within ten years. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 215 Evidence: moderate

In DDI (n = 431), participants were classified as CN A-/T- (n = 169), A+/T- (CN = 26, MCI = 24), A+/T+ (CN = 40, MCI = 105), and A-/T+ (CN = 34, MCI = 33), with a mean age of 64.1 years and 55.9% female. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 431 Evidence: moderate

Baseline plasma GFAP could detect abnormal CSF Aβ42/40 and CSF Aβ42/T-tau with an AUC of 0.79 (95% CI 0.72-0.86) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.72-0.86), respectively. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Cerebrospinal fluid NFL concentration (median [interquartile range]) was higher in the AD dementia group (1479 [1134-1842] pg/mL), stable MCI group (no progression to AD during follow-up; 1182 [923-1687] pg/mL), and progressive MCI group (MCI with progression to AD dementia during follow-up; 1336 [1061-1693] pg/mL) compared with control participants (1047 [809-1265] pg/mL) (P Conclusions and relevance Cerebrospinal fluid NFL concentration is increased by the early clinical stage of AD and is associated with cognitive deterioration and structural brain changes over time. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 95 Evidence: moderate

The CSF AD profile was more common in patients with SCI (31 of 60 [52%]), naMCI (25 of 37 [68%]), and aMCI (56 of 71 [79%]) than in healthy controls (28 of 89 [31%]). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

We developed models for individualized risk prediction of cognitive decline in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) using plasma biomarkers of β-amyloid (Aβ), tau and neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 573 Evidence: moderate

Plasma phosphorylated tau at threonine 181 (p-tau181), a well-validated marker of Alzheimer disease (AD) pathologic change, could be a more efficient way to diagnose AD than invasive or expensive biomarkers requiring CSF or PET. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 571 Evidence: moderate

Blood-Based Biomarkers and Risk of Onset of Mild Cognitive Impairment Over the Short and Long Term

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2024-12-26

This study examined whether levels of blood biomarkers of amyloid (Aβ 42 /Aβ 40 ratio), tau (p-tau 181 ), neurodegeneration (NfL), and glial activation and neuroinflammation (glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], YKL40, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 [sTREM2]) collected when participants were cognitively normal are associated with the time to onset of MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 271 Evidence: moderate

Estimates of AD disease duration become more accurate if age, sex, setting, APOE, and cerebrospinal fluid tau are taken into account. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,268 Evidence: low

Blood biomarkers indicating elevated amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology in preclinical Alzheimer's disease are needed to facilitate the initial screening process of participants in disease-modifying trials. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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