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 61 studies with an author at University of California, San Francisco (US) (page 1 of 3) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 61 studies tagged fluid — 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.

Rates of cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD) are extremely heterogeneous. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 3,397 Evidence: moderate

With the emergence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) disease-modifying therapies, identifying patients who could benefit from these treatments becomes critical. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,422 Evidence: moderate

Genome-wide meta-analysis for Alzheimer's disease cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2022-09-06

Amyloid-beta 42 (Aβ42) and phosphorylated tau (pTau) levels in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) reflect core features of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) more directly than clinical diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Participants: 8,074 Evidence: low

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

Increasing evidence suggests an important role of liver function in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,581 Evidence: moderate

Serum triglycerides in Alzheimer disease: Relation to neuroimaging and CSF biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Neurology 2020-05-01

This study shows that PUTG component scores were significantly associated with diagnostic group and AD biomarkers, a finding that was more pronounced in APOE ε4 carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 689 Evidence: moderate

Brain iron elevation is implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis, but the impact of iron on disease outcomes has not been previously explored in a longitudinal study. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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

Validation of Plasma Amyloid-β 42/40 for Detecting Alzheimer Disease Amyloid Plaques

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2021-12-14

Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 is a robust measure for detecting amyloid plaques and can be utilized to aid in the diagnosis of AD, identify those at risk for future dementia due to AD, and improve the diversity of populations enrolled in AD research and clinical trials. 3 key findings →

Participants: 465 Evidence: moderate

Blood biomarkers able to diagnose Alzheimer disease (AD) at the preclinical stage would enable trial enrollment when the disease is potentially reversible. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 161 Evidence: moderate

Temporal Dynamics and Biological Variability of Alzheimer Biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2025-02-17

Among the plasma biomarkers, phosphorylated tau (p-tau) 217 exhibited the highest concordance rate with Aβ (2326 of 2571 [90.5%]) and tau (100 of 120 [83.3%]) PET. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,611 Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is often considered an early stage of dementia, with estimated rates of progression to dementia up to 80-90% after approximately 6 years from the initial diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Anti-amyloid treatments for early symptomatic Alzheimer disease have recently become clinically available in some countries, which has greatly increased the need for biomarker confirmation of amyloid pathology. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The association between both biomarkers is limited to a middle range of values, is modified by the APOE genotype, and is absent for longitudinal changes; 4 different approaches in 2 different platforms converge on similar pathological Aβ cutoff levels; and different pipelines to process PET scans showed correlated but not identical results. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 820 Evidence: moderate

MRI and CSF biomarkers in normal, MCI, and AD subjects: predicting future clinical change

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2009-07-01

MRI and CSF provide complimentary predictive information about time to conversion from amnestic mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease and combination of the 2 provides better prediction than either source alone. 3 key findings →

Participants: 399 Evidence: low

We found no significant correlation between CSF biomarkers and cognitive scores in any of the 3 clinical groups individually. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 399 Evidence: low

Association of plasma beta-amyloid level and cognitive reserve with subsequent cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA 2011-01-01

Lower plasma β-amyloid 42 and 42/40 levels have been associated with incident dementia, but results are conflicting and few have investigated cognitive decline among elders without dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 550 Evidence: low

The aim of this study was to evaluate longitudinal associations of multimodal core 1 AD biomarkers with cognition in a cognitively unimpaired (CU) population at increased risk of AD dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 350 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