Plasma p-tau217 was the highest-performing biomarker for identifying biologically defined Alzheimer's disease, with pooled sensitivity of 88·1% (95% CI 86·7-89·5, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity of 88·7% (87·4-89·9, moderate certainty of evidence), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 91·1% (88·9-92·4, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio of 50·7 (40·6-63·4). p-tau181 pooled sensitivity was 80·5% (78·4-82·4, low certainty of evidence), specificity was 76·4% (74·1-78·6, low certainty of evidence), AUROC was 81·5% (80·2-82·9, low certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 13·4 (11·4-16·7). p-tau205 pooled sensitivity was 76·6% (70·7-81·6, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 86·0% (78·6-91·2, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 85·1% (80·7-89·6, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 20·2 (10·5-38·7). p-tau212 pooled sensitivity was 84·5% (75·5-90·6, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 87·3% (79·5-92·5, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 90·3% (86·6-94·1, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 41·2 (22·0-77·3). p-tau231 pooled sensitivity was 75·2% (71·3-78·8, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 75·3% (71·2-78·9, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 80·2 (77·6-82·7, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 9·3 (7·0-12·2). 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
These results confirm that blood-based pTau217 is a reliable marker of amyloid pathology with significant implications for clinical practice in the AD continuum. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Encouraging results were found for several biomarkers, alone or in combination. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Comparable performance of CSF and blood NfL in many groups demonstrates the promise of NfL as a noninvasive biomarker of neurodegeneration; however, its utility in clinically meaningful scenarios requires greater scrutiny. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
In our study, in addition to PD, NFL was suggested to be a global diagnostic biomarker for neurodegenerative diseases. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 36
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
At present we cannot recommend CSF NfH and NfL levels for use as a screening test in the diagnosis of dementia because of the rather small effect size. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Participants: 818
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
This review suggests a significant association between multimorbidity and AD blood biomarkers in older populations, while the results on CSF are mixed and inconsistent. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
71/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.
·
JAMA network open
·
2026-03-02
Across the cohorts, each 10-year increase in BAI was associated with a 39% higher risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.21-1.59]; P Conclusions and relevance In this IPD meta-analysis, a higher sleep EEG-based BAI was associated with a higher risk of incident dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 7,105
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
71/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.
·
JAMA neurology
·
2020-10-01
The largest cohort, the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer Disease Study (n = 3154), was the PET screening cohort used for a secondary prevention trial designed to slow cognitive decline associated with brain amyloidosis. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Participants: 3,154
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Free full text
71/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.
·
Cells
·
2023-05-04
Blood biomarkers have been considered tools for the diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Blood exosomes, which are extracellular vesicles secreted by living cells into the circulating blood, are regarded as a relatively noninvasive novel tool for monitoring brain physiology and disease states. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Our systematic review shows evidence for disruptions in (night-time) melatonin levels in AD as compared to age-matched controls. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
SORL1 is associated with AD in the Hong Kong Chinese population. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
A lack of convenient and reliable biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis is a common challenge for neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
71/100
✓ Peer-reviewed
alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.
·
Cells
·
2023-04-18
This paper highlights the growing evidence that blood-based tau biomarkers have early diagnostic utility for Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Current evidence shows that plasma p-tau217 is a sensitive maker of the clinical manifestation and progression of Alzheimer's disease and of pathological changes associated with this condition, including amyloid accumulation, tau burden, brain atrophy and physical degradation. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
There is a need for blood biomarkers to detect individuals at different Alzheimer's disease (AD) stages because obtaining cerebrospinal fluid-based biomarkers is invasive and costly. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Seventy-six articles met the inclusion criteria for systematic review. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Neurofilament light (NFL) is a putative biomarker of neurodegeneration. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
The available evidence suggests that ethnicity and race may influence blood biomarker concentrations. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
The development of blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology as tools for screening the general population is essential, but persists controversies. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Astrocytes are the most abundant cell type in the human central nervous system, and they play an important role in the regulation of neuronal physiology. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
Currently available assays for sampling plasma ATN biomarkers appear to differentiate between AD patients and controls. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
The recent development of ultrasensitive technology allows the determination of blood-based biomarkers with high sensitivity, thus facilitating the early detection of AD through the analysis of easily obtained biological samples. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
To identify whether platelet amyloid-β protein precursor (AβPP) ratio, phosphorylated-tau (P-tau) 231, P-tau181, and serine 396 and 404 (Ser396/404) phosphorylated tau are potential peripheral indicators for early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies →
Original source
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 32,180 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.