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 201–225 of 835 studies (page 9 of 34) · 27,780 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)

Showing 835 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.

Although advancing age is the strongest risk factor for the development of symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD), recent studies have shown that there are individual differences in susceptibility to age-related alterations in the biomarkers of AD pathophysiology. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 268 Evidence: moderate

Measures of neuronal loss are likely good surrogates for clinical and radiological disease progression in Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 23 Evidence: moderate

In this retrospective study, GAP-43 was measured in participants from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort using an in-house ELISA method, and levels were compared between groups, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. 4 key findings →

Participants: 786 Evidence: moderate

α-Synuclein seed amplification assays (αSAAs) can improve the diagnosis of synucleinopathies and detect α-synuclein (αSyn) copathology in vivo in clinical practice. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 337 Evidence: moderate

A growing body of evidence suggests that the plasma concentration of the neurofilament light chain (NfL) might be considered a plasma biomarker for the screening of neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 25 Evidence: low

C-Reactive Protein, Plasma Amyloid-β Levels, and Their Interaction With Magnetic Resonance Imaging Markers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Stroke 2018-11-01

We hypothesize that CRP (C-reactive protein) is associated with brain structural changes and may interact with amyloid to produce vascular and degenerative damage. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 736 Evidence: moderate

The relative performance of semi-quantitative amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) markers in diagnosing Alzheimer's disease (AD) and predicting the cognitive evolution of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is still debated. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 677 Evidence: moderate

To test whether cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) growth-associated protein 43 (GAP-43) concentration is elevated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia and its associations with other hallmarks of AD, we examined the CSF GAP-43 measurements of 787 participants (245 cognitively normal (CN), 415 individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 127 individuals with AD dementia) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 787 Evidence: moderate

Widespread implementation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in clinical settings requires improved accuracy for diagnosis of prodromal disease and for distinguishing AD from non-AD dementias. 4 key findings →

Participants: 338 Evidence: moderate

These findings highlight the diagnostic and longitudinal monitoring potential of GFAP and p-tau for preclinical AD. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Using blood samples from the publicly available ADNI research cohort (191 people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia), this study found the PrecivityAD2 blood test agreed with amyloid PET scans about 91% of the time. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 191 Evidence: moderate

Plasma GFAP is a prognostic biomarker in CU older adults, predicting cognitive and biological changes, with stronger associations observed in females, highlighting a possible sex-specific vulnerability. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 949 Evidence: moderate

The evaluation of blood biomarkers on an automated platform exhibited high diagnostic accuracy for AD pathophysiology, and pTau 217 showed excellent diagnostic accuracy to identify participants with AD in a consecutive sample representing the routine clinical practice in a specialized memory unit. 1 key finding →

Participants: 130 Evidence: low

CSF synaptic biomarkers increase in the early preclinical stages of the Alzheimer continuum even when a low burden of Aβ pathology is present, and they differ in their association with age, sex, APOE ε4 , and markers of neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Plasma biomarkers for prediction of Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2023-06-03

While plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are increasingly being evaluated for clinical diagnosis and prognosis, few population-based autopsy studies have evaluated their utility in the context of predicting neuropathological changes. 3 key findings →

Participants: 350 Evidence: low

The proposed novel, pragmatic method to determine CSF biomarker cutoffs for AD does not require assessment of other biomarkers or assumptions concerning the clinical diagnosis of patients. 1 key finding →

Participants: 497 Evidence: low

Longitudinal racial differences in amyloid biomarkers are observed. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 179 Evidence: moderate

This comprehensive analysis demonstrated that the variance in AD blood biomarker concentrations was mainly explained by age, with minor contributions from cognition, brain atrophy, and genetics, conversely to CSF measures. 3 key findings →

Participants: 2,323 Evidence: low

These findings suggest EPVS burden to be a potential marker of both CSVD and AD-related BBM pathology. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 979 Evidence: moderate

Sex differences in CSF biomarkers vary by Alzheimer disease stage and APOE ε4 genotype

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2020-08-11

Within APOE ε4 carriers, sex differences in CSF p-Tau are more evident in early disease stages, whereas for APOE ε4 noncarriers, sex differences are more evident in advanced disease stages. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,801 Evidence: low

From across this tag

9 of the 830 studies in this tag, 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 9. The same 9 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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