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.

We identified that combining plasma p-tau217 and a brief cognitive composite score was strongly related to greater risk of progression to AD dementia in MCI patients, suggesting that these measures could be key components of future prognostic algorithms for early AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 110 Evidence: low

Plasma phosphorylated tau at threonine 181 (p-tau181), a well-validated marker of Alzheimer disease (AD) pathologic change, could be a more efficient way to diagnose AD than invasive or expensive biomarkers requiring CSF or PET. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 571 Evidence: moderate

The role of microglia in tau accumulation is currently unclear but could provide an important insight into the mechanisms underlying Alzheimer's disease (AD) 1 . 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Diagnostic value of serum versus plasma phospho-tau for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2022-05-11

Comparable diagnostic performances and strong correlations between serum versus plasma pairs suggest that p-tau analyses can be expanded to research cohorts and hospital systems that prefer serum to other blood matrices. 5 key findings →

Participants: 115 Evidence: moderate

Our findings support an association of APOE ɛ4 and p-tau181 with preclinical AD and hippocampus functioning. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Blood-based biomarkers such as tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (phosphorylated-tau181) represent an accessible, cost-effective and scalable approach for the in vivo detection of Alzheimer's disease pathophysiology. 5 key findings →

Participants: 103 Evidence: low

Two genetic variants in strong linkage disequilibrium (rs9536314 and rs9527025) in the Klotho (KL) gene, encoding a transmembrane protein, implicated in longevity and associated with brain resilience during normal aging, were recently shown to be associated with Alzheimer disease (AD) risk in cognitively normal participants who are APOE ε4 carriers. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,541 Evidence: low

Creatinine and BMI are related to certain plasma biomarkers levels, but they do not have clinically relevant confounding effects for the vast majority of individuals. 1 key finding →

Participants: 748 Evidence: low

Plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease in relation to neuropathology and cognitive change

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2022-02-23

Plasma biomarkers related to amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration (ATN) show great promise for identifying these pathological features of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) as shown by recent clinical studies and selected autopsy studies. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Clinical trials testing tau-targeting therapies may benefit from using fluid biomarkers to recruit individuals at risk of tau aggregation. 1 key finding →

Participants: 163 Evidence: low

Baseline tau-PET and a composite baseline cognitive score were the strongest independent predictors of cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Measurement of Aβ in plasma contributes to addressing the amyloid component of the ATN (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) framework and could be a first step before or in place of a PET or cerebrospinal fluid screening study. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The past few years have seen an explosion in sensitive and specific assays for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related disorders, as well as some novel assays based on pathological seed-induced protein misfolding in patient samples. 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
  • 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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