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 251–275 of 640 studies in Biomarkers · free to read (page 11 of 26) · 31,780 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)

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.

CSF SDC4 levels were elevated in AD, including the earliest preclinical stages, compared to controls and were closely associated with CSF and imaging biomarkers of amyloid and tau, and CSF biomarkers of neuronal and synaptic injury, astrocytic reactivity and microglial dysregulation. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,041 Evidence: moderate

Plasma Biomarkers for Neocortical Tau Burden

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2026-08-10

The study included 560 amyloid-positive participants (BioFINDER: n = 431; mean [SD] age, 73.6 [7.0] years; 212 female [49.2%] and 219 male [51.8%]; TRIAD: n = 129; mean [SD] age, 70.4 [8.3] years; 76 female [58.9%] and 53 male [41.1%]). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 431 Evidence: moderate

Plasma P-tau217 for detecting amyloid clearance after donanemab in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer's & Dementia 2026-08-07

Despite reductions in plasma p-tau217 with donanemab treatment, this biomarker cannot currently be used to accurately detect TRAC by PET (< 24.1 CL) in individuals with early symptomatic AD. 1 key finding →

Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 830 Evidence: null result

Inflammation in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients is characterized by increased cytokines and activated microglia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In all 6 patients (3 women and 3 men; mean age 61.8 years), the underlying clinical phenotype was associated with the regional distribution of the [18F]AV-1451 signal. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Plasma biomarkers associated with the apolipoprotein E genotype and Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2012-10-01

Plasma biomarker results confirm cerebrospinal fluid studies reporting increased levels of pancreatic polypeptide and N-terminal protein B-type brain natriuretic peptide in patients with AD and mild cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Serum neurofilament light chain in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2018-09-12

As serum NfL correlates with functional impairment and brain atrophy in bvFTD at different disease stages, we propose it as marker of disease severity, paving the way for its future use as outcome measure for clinical trials. 1 key finding →

Participants: 74 Evidence: low

Overall visual ratings showed complete concordance between radiotracers for both the medial temporal lobe and the neocortex. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In cohort 1, PVEC increased the effect on AD-versus-HC discrimination from a Cohen d value of 1.68 to 2.0 for composite SUVRs and from 0.04 to 1.04 for mesial temporal cortex SUVRs. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a promising biomarker for risk stratification and disease monitoring of dementia, but its utility in the preclinical disease stage remains uncertain. 4 key findings →

Participants: 975 Evidence: low

Longitudinal patterns of clinical decline differ between LPA and PCA but are heterogeneous and related to different patterns of topographic spread. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate

Novel plasma assays enabled accurate blood-based biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases with minimally invasive options for clinical use. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,232 Evidence: low

Our study provides evidence that plasma p-tau217 has strong discriminative accuracy for AD among patients with early-onset and/or atypical dementia assessed in specialized settings. 4 key findings →

Participants: 81 Evidence: low

Selected CSF biomarkers at presentation were associated with etiologic diagnoses and treatment responsiveness in patients with heterogeneous causes of RPD. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 44 Evidence: low

Alzheimer Disease, Vascular Disease, and Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability Biomarkers in Middle-Aged Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2025-10-06

The findings suggest that permeability of the blood-brain barrier is linked to AD pathophysiology, contributes to cerebrovascular lesions observed on MRI, and is associated with neuroinflammation in middle age. 5 key findings →

Participants: 488 Evidence: low

In the whole cohort, p ‐tau217, NfL, GFAP and p ‐tau181 were significantly increased over time showing more accelerated increase in Aβ+ than Aβ‐ participants. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 718 Evidence: moderate

This cross-sectional study evaluates the performance of the US Food and Drug Administration–cleared phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217) to β-amyloid 42 ratio cut points used to detect amyloid pathology associated with Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Plasma p‐tau 217 offers a cost‐effective AD‐specific alternative to tau‐PET and could potentially be implemented for monitoring cognitive changes in AD trials, while amyloid‐PET lacks utility. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 141 Evidence: moderate

In this real-world dataset, we identified effects of multimorbidities on plasma biomarkers, especially kidney function. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 617 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.

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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.

1,052 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