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 1–24 of 24 studies in Getting a diagnosis · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 24 studies tagged phosphorylated — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Getting a diagnosis” covers

Getting a diagnosis — How Alzheimer's is identified, how accurate the tests are, and how early it can be caught.

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.

Concentrations of plasma p-tau181 were compared with established CSF and PET biomarkers and longitudinal measurements using Spearman correlation, area under the curve (AUC), and linear regression analyses. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,131 Evidence: moderate

The neuropathological confirmation of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and tau neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) remains the gold standard for a definitive diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 115 Evidence: moderate

Whilst cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and positron emission tomography (PET) biomarkers for amyloid-β (Aβ) and tau pathologies are accurate for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), their broad implementation in clinical and trial settings are restricted by high cost and limited accessibility. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,000 Evidence: moderate

Plasma phosphorylated tau181 (P-tau181) might be increased in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but its usefulness for differential diagnosis and prognosis is unclear. 2 key findings →

Participants: 589 Evidence: moderate

AUC for amyloid and tau PET provide expert recommendations for clinical use of these technologies in the evolving landscape of diagnostics and therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic-review Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau231: a new biomarker for incipient Alzheimer's disease pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2021-02-14

Furthermore, plasma p-tau231 was significantly increased in amyloid-β PET quartiles 2-4, whereas CSF p-tau217 and plasma p-tau181 increased only at quartiles 3-4 and 4, respectively. 2 key findings →

Participants: 588 Evidence: moderate

We found that the mass spectrometry-based p-tau217 (p-tau217WashU) exhibited significantly better performance than all other plasma p-tau biomarkers when detecting abnormal Aβ status [area under curve (AUC) = 0.947; Pdiff 0.09), but higher compared with AUC of p-tau231UGOT, p-tau181Lilly, p-tau181UGOT, p-tau181Fuji and p-tau181Splex (AUCrange 0.642-0.813; Pdiff ≤ 0.029). 5 key findings →

Participants: 135 Evidence: low

In older cognitively unimpaired individuals (≥50 years), widespread, age-related elevated tau signal was seen among those with normal or abnormal amyloid status as compared to younger cognitively unimpaired individuals (30-49 years). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Moreover, biomarker plasma levels and rates of change over time of participants who developed Alzheimer's disease dementia during follow-up were compared with age and sex-matched dementia-free control subjects. 5 key findings →

Participants: 549 Evidence: low

In the UGOT cohort, the optimal cutoff improved diagnostic accuracy compared with the standard single cutoff, particularly in CKD and anemia (CKD: from 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72; to 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89; anemia: from 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.84; to 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90), with consistent findings in the Roche cohort. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,571 Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau217 and p-tau181 were correlated (r=0·90, p diff =0·31) and in pathology-confirmed Alzheimer's disease (n=15, mean age 73 years [SD 12]) versus pathologically confirmed FTLD (n=68, mean age 67 years [SD 8]; AUC=0·96 [0·92-1·00] for p-tau217, AUC=0·91 [0·82-1·00] for p-tau181; p diff =0·22). 4 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

In our training set, people with Parkinson's disease, multiple system atrophy, and dementia with Lewy bodies had lower CSF α-synuclein concentrations than patients with Alzheimer's disease and other neurological disorders. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Blood-based AD biomarker concentrations are associated with pathological and clinical diagnoses and can predict future development of clinical AD, providing evidence that they can be incorporated into multi-ethnic, community-based studies. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Tau biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease: towards implementation in clinical practice and trials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2022-05-25

Neuroimaging and biofluid tau markers hold potential for optimising such clinical trials by augmenting participant selection, providing evidence of target engagement, and monitoring treatment efficacy. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

The p-tau proteins in CSF come closest to fulfilling the criteria of a biological marker of AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 206 Evidence: low

Our data suggest that [F-18]-AV-1451 holds promise as a surrogate marker for the detection of brain tau pathology in the form of tangles and paired helical filament-tau-containing neurites in Alzheimer brains but also point to its relatively lower affinity for lesions primarily made of straight tau filaments in non-Alzheimer tauopathy cases and to the existence of some [F-18]-AV-1451 off-target binding. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Comparison of multiple tau-PET measures as biomarkers in aging and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. NeuroImage 2017-06-03

The recent development of tau-specific positron emission tomography (PET) tracers enables in vivo quantification of regional tau pathology, one of the key lesions in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Moreover, the presence of Aβ+ was associated with an elevated [18F]-AV-1451 SUVR in AD cortical signature regions (Aβ+ participants: mean [SD], 1.3 [0.3]; Aβ- participants: 1.1 [0.1]; F = 4.3, P = .04) but not in the hippocampus. 3 key findings →

Participants: 59 Evidence: low

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biochemical markers for Alzheimer disease (AD) would be of great value to improve the clinical diagnostic accuracy of the disorder. 2 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
  • 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