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 64 studies by Zetterberg H (page 1 of 3) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 64 studies tagged csf — 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.

Prediction of Longitudinal Cognitive Decline in Preclinical Alzheimer Disease Using Plasma Biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2023-04-01

Among 171 Aβ-positive CU participants included in the main analyses, 119 (mean [SD] age, 73.0 [5.4] years; 60.5% female) were from the BioFINDER-1 study, and 52 (mean [SD] age, 64.4 [4.6] years; 65.4% female) were from the WRAP study. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 564 Evidence: moderate

The NfL level was increased at baseline in patients with mild cognitive impairment and AD dementia (mean levels: cognitive unimpairment, 32.1 ng/L; mild cognitive impairment, 37.9 ng/L; and AD dementia, 45.9 ng/L; P Conclusions and relevance The findings suggest that plasma NfL can be used as a noninvasive biomarker associated with neurodegeneration in patients with AD and may be useful to monitor effects in trials of disease-modifying drugs. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,583 Evidence: moderate

Association of Plasma Neurofilament Light With Neurodegeneration in Patients With Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-05-01

Among 193 cognitively healthy controls, 197 patients with mild cognitive impairment, and 180 patients with AD with dementia, plasma NFL correlated with CSF NFL (Spearman ρ = 0.59, P Conclusions and relevance Plasma NFL is associated with AD diagnosis and with cognitive, biochemical, and imaging hallmarks of the disease. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 197 Evidence: moderate

CSF biomarkers of neuroinflammation and cerebrovascular dysfunction in early Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Neurology 2018-07-27

Neuroinflammation and cerebrovascular dysfunction are early events occurring already at presymptomatic stages of AD and contribute to disease progression. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 508 Evidence: moderate

Detailed comparison of amyloid PET and CSF biomarkers for identifying early Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Neurology 2015-09-09

The best CSF measures for identifying MCI-AD were Aβ42/total tau (t-tau) and Aβ42/hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau) (area under the curve [AUC] 0.93-0.94). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 122 Evidence: moderate

The mean (SD) age of the 842 participants in cohort 1 was 72 (5.6) years, with a range of 59 to 88 years, and 446 (52.5%) were female. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 842 Evidence: moderate

These data support the use of cNfL as a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage and indicate that age-specific and sex-specific (and in some cases disease-specific) reference values may be needed. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,795 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

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

In a community-based cohort of 70-year olds, P-NfL was associated with both prevalent and incident CKD, while CSF and/or imaging measures did not differ by CKD status. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 744 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

Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers may be useful to monitor the effects of novel disease-modifying anti-Aβ drugs in clinical trials. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 19 Evidence: high

Elecsys CSF biomarker assays may provide reliable alternatives to PET in Alzheimer's disease diagnosis. 3 key findings →

Participants: 277 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

Dissection of synaptic pathways through the CSF biomarkers for predicting Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2020-06-25

All synaptic biomarkers tested had a good discriminatory power to distinguish patients with AD abnormal CSF from those with non-AD disorders. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 81 Evidence: moderate

We enrolled a cohort of 1070 PSEN1 E280A mutation carriers and 1074 non-carriers with baseline assessments; of these participants, longitudinal measures (with a mean follow-up of 6 years) were available for 242 mutation carriers and 262 non-carriers. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Pericyte damage, reflected by CSF PDGFRβ, may be involved in age-related BBB disruption together with neuroinflammation, but is not related to Alzheimer-related pathologic changes. 2 key findings →

Participants: 408 Evidence: moderate

Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy and Downstream Alzheimer Disease Plasma Biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA network open 2025-05-01

Lobar CMB counts and the presence of CAA were associated with downstream AD plasma biomarkers, including p-tau217 (β = 0.12 [95% CI, 0.05-0.18] and 0.29 [95% CI, 0.12-0.47], respectively), GFAP (β = 0.07 [95% CI, 0.03-0.12] and 0.20 [95% CI, 0.09-0.31], respectively), and NfL (β = 0.07 [95% CI, 0.03-0.11] and 0.16 [95% CI, 0.06-0.25], respectively) with and without the mediation of Aβ uptake on PET (indirect effect: lobar CMBs-p-tau217, 59.8% [β = 0.07 (95% CI, 0.03-0.11)]; lobar CMBs-GFAP, 49.3% [β = 0.04 (95% CI, 0.01-0.06)]; lobar CMBs-NfL, 20.9% [β = 0.01 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03)]; CAA-p-tau217, 50.9% [β = 0.15 (95% CI, 0.06-0.24)]; CAA-GFAP, 39.2% [β = 0.08 (95% CI, 0.03-0.13)]; CAA-NfL, 19.2% [β = 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01-0.05)]). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,708 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