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 776–800 of 943 studies (page 32 of 38) · 30,580 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)

Showing 943 studies tagged biomarkers — clear

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.

Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease Early Diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of personalized medicine 2020-09-04

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia, affecting the central nervous system (CNS) through the accumulation of intraneuronal neurofibrillary tau tangles (NFTs) and β-amyloid plaques. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Blood-based biomarkers are promising tools for the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD) at prodromal stages (mild cognitive impairment [MCI]) and are hoped to be implemented as screening tools for patients with cognitive complaints. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

These results agree with a persistent inflammatory status in AD, reinforcing the hypothesis of a progressive impairment of the immune response in this disorder and suggesting that monocytes may be good targets to study the progression from MCI to AD. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Obesity is related to quantitative neuroimaging abnormalities including reduced gray matter volumes and impaired white matter microstructural integrity, although the underlying mechanisms are not well understood. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the current study, we aimed to develop an algorithm based on biomarkers obtained through non- or minimally invasive procedures to identify healthy elderly subjects who have an increased risk of abnormal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid beta42 (Aβ) levels consistent with the presence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. 4 key findings →

Participants: 200 Evidence: low

Total serum homocysteine in senile dementia of Alzheimer type

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 1998-04-01

The main hypothesis was that subtle vitamin B12 deficiencies occur more commonly in senile dementia of Alzheimer type (SDAT) that in healthy elderly individuals, and may be revealed by elevated total serum homocysteine (tHcy). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Circulating miRNAs as biomarkers for neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) 2014-05-23

Neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD) and frontotemporal dementias (FTD), are considered distinct entities, however, there is increasing evidence of an overlap from the clinical, pathological and genetic points of view. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is generally diagnosed using advanced imaging, but recent research suggests early screening using biomarkers in peripheral blood is feasible; among them, plasma tau proteins phosphorylated at threonine 231, threonine 181, and threonine 217 (p-tau217) are potential targets. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

We present an efficient utilization of a machine learning (ML) method concentrating on the 'AI for social good' application. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia affecting the growing aging population today, with prevalence expected to rise over the next 35 years. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

High-dose vitamin supplementation reduces homocysteine levels in patients with AD. 2 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 69 Evidence: high

From across this tag

10 of the 937 studies in this tag that have a study page, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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