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 110 studies in Biomarkers · tagged Other Dementias (page 1 of 5) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

This study investigated the potential association between levels of plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) and cognitive function in patients suffering from Parkinson's disease (PD) in P.R. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 168 Evidence: high

Neuropathology cases included 46 Parkinson's disease and 10 dementia with Lewy bodies, and clinical cases included 173 Parkinson's disease, and 64 controls. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 46 Evidence: moderate

Hallucinations, delusions, and depression were more common in DLB than in AD and, in a subgroup with longitudinal follow-up, persistent hallucinations and NPSs were associated with lower p-tau181 and p-tau231 in DLB. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 222 Evidence: moderate

A total of 143 iRBD participants (110 male, 67.7 ± 8.0 years) were included. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,004 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive testing follow-up occurred for 1 to 18 years (mean [SD], 0.98 [2.25] years); autopsy-verified diagnoses were available for 120 of 845 participants with diseases (14.2%). 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 913 Evidence: moderate

Our study suggests a possible utility of plasma Aβ42/40, P-tau181, and P-tau231 as a noninvasive biomarkers to assess amyloid copathology in DLB, and plasma GFAP and NfL as monitoring biomarkers for cognitive symptoms in DLB. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 89 Evidence: moderate

This large study shows the role of plasma biomarkers in differentiating patients with different dementias, and at monitoring longitudinal change. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 300 Evidence: moderate

Of 386 participants, 199 (52%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 68 (8) years. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 113 Evidence: moderate

Serum NFL is increased in ALS in comparison to other conditions and can serve as diagnostic and prognostic biomarker. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 124 Evidence: moderate

Plasma Tau and Neurofilament Light in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration and Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2020-11-16

Plasma NfL is superior to plasma t-tau for the diagnosis and prediction of clinical progression of FTLD-S and AD-S. Classification of evidence This study provides Class III evidence that plasma NfL has superior diagnostic and prognostic performance vs plasma t-tau in FTLD and AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 265 Evidence: moderate

Rates of Amyloid Imaging Positivity in Patients With Primary Progressive Aphasia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2018-03-01

Inclusion criteria included clinical diagnosis of PPA; availability of complete speech, language, and cognitive testing; magnetic resonance imaging performed within 6 months of the cognitive evaluation; and PET carbon 11-labeled Pittsburgh Compound-B or florbetapir F 18 brain scan results. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 109 Evidence: moderate

A combination of plasma p-tau181, NfL, and GFAP, but not Aβ 1-42/1-40 , might be useful to discriminate AD, FTD, and DLB. 1 key finding →

Participants: 160 Evidence: moderate

Baseline NfL was elevated in symptomatic carriers (median 52 pg/mL [IQR 24-69]) compared with presymptomatic carriers (9 pg/mL [6-13]; p<0·0001) and non-carriers (8 pg/mL [6-11]; p<0·0001), and was higher in converters than in non-converting carriers (19 pg/mL [17-28] vs 8 pg/mL [6-11]; p=0·0007; adjusted for age). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 59 Evidence: moderate

Distinguishing Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration Tau From TDP-43 Using Plasma Biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2022-11-01

Of 349 participants with available plasma data, 234 met inclusion criteria (31 controls, 141 in the training sample, and 62 in the validation sample). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 46 Evidence: low

Pathophysiological substrate(s) and progression of Parkinson's disease (PD) with mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI) are still matter of debate. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 48 Evidence: moderate

Temporal order of clinical and biomarker changes in familial frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Nature medicine 2022-09-22

Unlike familial Alzheimer's disease, we have been unable to accurately predict symptom onset in presymptomatic familial frontotemporal dementia (f-FTD) mutation carriers, which is a major hurdle to designing disease prevention trials. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

NfL in both serum and CSF has the potential to serve as a biomarker for clinical disease onset and has a prognostic value in genetic FTD. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 174 Evidence: moderate

CSF Aβ levels are altered in a subset of patients with early PD and relate to memory impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

One hundred forty-six subjects (56 probable MCI-LB, 22 possible MCI-LB, 44 MCI-AD, and 24 controls) were reviewed for up to 5.7 years. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

CSF biomarkers, including P-tau, T-tau, Aβ 42 , Aβ 40 , and NFL, support in vivo identification of AD neuropathology and correlate with FTLD neuropathology. 4 key findings →

Participants: 101 Evidence: low

CSF sAPPβ, YKL-40, and neurofilament light in frontotemporal lobar degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2017-06-07

The combination of sAPPβ with YKL-40 and with NfL in CSF could be useful to increase the certainty of the diagnosis of FTLD-related syndromes in clinical practice. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 159 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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