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

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.

This large review pooled 113 studies (nearly 30,000 people) comparing different forms of blood phosphorylated tau for detecting Alzheimer's pathology. p-tau217 was clearly the best-performing marker, correctly identifying disease pathology about 88% of the time, outperforming other tau variants like p-tau181. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 29,625 Evidence: moderate

NfL demonstrated fair to excellent accuracy in differentiating non-ACS from CU groups (area under the curve [AUC], 0.79 to 0.94). p-tau217 had the highest accuracy for identifying Aβ (AUC 0.94) and tau positron emission tomography status (AUC 0.91). 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,984 Evidence: low

Compared to non-carriers, APOE ε4 carriers had lower Aβ42/Aβ40 and greater longitudinal increases in p-tau181 and GFAP; in contrast, the AD-PRS (excluding the APOE region) was associated with greater declines in Aβ42/Aβ40 among APOE ε4 non-carriers. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Plasma phosphorylated tau 217 and amyloid‑β 42/40 for amyloid risk in subgroups

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2025-08-07

In CU individuals from the development cohort, the combination of p-tau217 and Aβ42/40 significantly improved diagnostic accuracy (AUC: ALZpath 0.937 vs. 0.905, MSD 0.901 vs. 0.861; p < 0.05, DeLong test; 95% CIs) and model fit (AIC /BIC, p < 0.001) compared to p-tau217 alone. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,545 Evidence: moderate

In single predictor models, p-tau231 (AUC = 0.87, p = 0.005) and GFAP (AUC = 0.87, p = 0.01) were associated with amyloid positivity, and p-tau231 remained significant in all multi-predictor models (p-values < 0.02). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Of the 250 participants, 121 (48.4%) were female and the mean age at follow-up was 76.06 (SD 0.48). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 250 Evidence: moderate

Worse overall and local LC-EC integrity, indicated by lower fractional anisotropy (FA) and higher mean diffusivity (MD), was related to elevated concentrations of plasma phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau181), p-tau217, and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 contributed most to identify Aβ-positivity, while continuous Aβ-PET load within the positive range was best predicted by plasma P-tau217. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,053 Evidence: low

Plasma biomarkers were associated with comorbidities and metabolites such as estimated glomerular filtration rate, homocysteine, and high-density lipoprotein. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive assessment and analysis of plasma biomarkers are lower-cost options for the early assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 327 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

↑ 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.

1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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