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 26–50 of 50 studies with an author at Karolinska Institutet (SE) (page 2 of 2) · 31,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 50 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 50 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.

An update on blood-based biomarkers for non-Alzheimer neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2020-04-22

Cerebrospinal fluid analyses and neuroimaging can identify the underlying pathophysiology at the earliest stage of some neurodegenerative disorders, but do not have the scalability needed for population screening. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Diet can impact cognitive aging, but comprehensive data from human studies is lacking and the underlying biological mechanisms are still not fully understood. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,907 Evidence: low

Blood biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are promising for dementia prediction, but their association with progression across intermediate stages of cognitive decline in the general population remains unclear. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

We studied CSF-tau and CSF-Abeta42 in 16 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) who at follow-up investigations 6-27 months later had progressed to Alzheimer's disease (AD) with dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

This article presents recommendations, based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method, for the clinical application of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-β 1-42 , tau, and phosphorylated tau in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Microglia protein profiles in CSF across Alzheimer’s disease clinical stages

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Nature Aging 2026-03-11

Microglia are implicated in the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology from its earliest stages, suggesting that cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) microglia profiling across clinical AD stages can aid in treatment development and monitoring. 3 key findings →

Participants: 834 Evidence: low

Although plasma pTau181, pTau217, pTau231, and GFAP were significantly associated with both Aβ-PET and CSF pTau181, Aβ-PET explained more variance in the levels of these biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by the presence of senile plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and neuronal cell loss associated with membrane cholesterol release. 24S-hydroxycholesterol (24S-OH-Chol) is an enzymatically oxidized product of cholesterol mainly synthesized in the brain. 3 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

Cerebrospinal fluid alpha-synuclein in neurodegenerative disorders-a marker of synapse loss?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neuroscience letters 2008-11-12

The association of alpha-synuclein (alpha-syn) neuropathology with Parkinson's disease (PD) and several related disorders has led to an intense research effort to develop cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)- or blood-based alpha-syn biomarkers for these types of diseases. 4 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between cerebrospinal fluid Alzheimer's disease (AD) markers and depression in elderly people. 4 key findings →

Participants: 183 Evidence: low

Increased CAIDE dementia risk, cognition, CSF biomarkers, and vascular burden in healthy adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2018-06-13

Cognitively normal participants (mean age 57.6 years) from the Gipuzkoa Alzheimer Project study were classified as having high risk (HR; n = 82) or low risk (LR; n = 293) for dementia according to a CAIDE score cutoff of 9. 4 key findings →

Participants: 82 Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains a clinical diagnosis but biomarkers from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and more lately amyloid imaging with positron emission tomography (PET), are important to support a diagnosis of AD. 4 key findings →

Participants: 64 Evidence: low

All mutations known to cause familial Alzheimer's disease (AD) act by increasing the levels of soluble beta-amyloid peptide (A beta), especially the longer form, A beta42. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Role of protein kinase B in Alzheimer's neurofibrillary pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2002-12-18

Protein kinase B (PKB) is an important intermediate in the phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase signaling cascade that acts to phosphorylate glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK-3) at its serine 9 residue, thereby inactivating it. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The AddNeuroMed and ADNI cohorts were combined giving a total of 329 healthy controls, 421 mild cognitive impairment patients, and 286 Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. 4 key findings →

Participants: 329 Evidence: low

A higher DMV score was significantly associated with increased likelihoods of MCI (OR=1.19; 95%CI=1.06‒1.34) and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) (1.21; 1.06‒1.37), and lower scores in MMSE (-0.01; -0.02‒0.00; p = 0.041), global cognition (-0.05; -0.08‒-0.03), memory (-0.06; -0.10‒-0.02), verbal fluency (-0.05; -0.08‒-0.02), attention (-0.04; -0.07‒-0.01), and executive function (-0.06; -0.10‒-0.03). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 903 Evidence: low

The purpose of the present study was to investigate if cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers of neurodegeneration are associated with cognition in bipolar disorder and healthy controls, respectively. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A one‐point ALI increase was associated with MCI conversion odds by 15%. 1 key finding →

Participants: 385 Evidence: low

We have successfully generated specific high affinity monoclonal antibodies against p -Tau217, p -Tau205, and N-terminus GFAP and have confirmed that these antibodies have the necessary specificity and sensitivity for the Simoa platform. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) is caused by pathogenic variants in the APP, PSEN1 and PSEN2 genes, but a substantial fraction of reported variants is of unknown clinical significance. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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
  • 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