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 1–16 of 16 studies in Biomarkers with an author at University of Washington (US) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 16 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

What “Biomarkers” covers

Biomarkers — Measurable signals in blood, brain scans or spinal fluid that can indicate Alzheimer's changes.

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.

Circulating NfL and GFAP may, independently and jointly, provide useful clinical insight regarding dementia risk and prognosis. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,712 Evidence: moderate

Plasma Phosphorylated Tau 217 and Incident Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia in Older Women

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-03-02

Among 2766 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.9 [3.8] years; 486 [17.9%] Black, 196 [7.1%] Hispanic, and 2007 [73.9%] White), 1311 developed the combined end point of MCI or dementia (849 participants with MCI and 752 participants with dementia). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 2,766 Evidence: moderate

Across the brain, people with Down syndrome had greater concentrations of tau for a given level of amyloid compared with people with autosomal-dominant Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 137 Evidence: moderate

In DIAD, solanezumab was not associated with ARIA. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 52 Evidence: moderate

Positron emission tomography (PET) of brain amyloid b is a technology that is becoming more available, but its clinical utility in medical practice requires careful definition. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mild to moderate Alzheimer dementia with insufficient neuropathological changes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2014-04-08

Recently, ~16% of participants in an anti-Aβ passive immunotherapy trial for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease (AD) had a negative baseline amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) scan. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The secreted peptide adropin is highly expressed in human brain tissues and correlates with RNA and proteomic risk indicators for dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 452 Evidence: low

Clinical trials of anti-amyloid-β (Aβ) monoclonal antibodies in Alzheimer disease (AD) infer target engagement from Aβ positron emission tomography (PET) and/or fluid biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42/40. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Amyloid PET imaging is a novel diagnostic test that can detect in living humans one of the two defining pathologic lesions of Alzheimer disease, amyloid-β deposition in the brain. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

ε4, socioeconomic status, physical activity, smoking, subjective cognitive decline, and various cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

On achieving conformance, sites can justify a claim that brain amyloid burden reflected by the SUVR is measurable to a within-subject coefficient of variation of no more than 1.94% when the same radiopharmaceutical, scanner, acquisition, and analysis protocols are used. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Amyloid PET imaging is a novel diagnostic test that can detect in living humans one of the two defining pathologic lesions of Alzheimer disease, amyloid-β deposition in the brain. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Plasma inflammatory biomarker associations with Alzheimers disease clinical stage and CSF biomarkers: evaluation of sex effects

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-17

BackgroundAlzheimers disease (AD) is characterized by amyloid beta and tau accumulation accompanied by altered inflammatory responses. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 261 Evidence: moderate

Proteoform-resolved neoGFAP as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker across the TBI--MCI--AD continuum in Veterans

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-03

Service members with traumatic brain injury are at approximately two- to four-fold higher risk of Alzheimers disease or related dementias than those without such an injury, with risk increasing with injury severity. 5 key findings →

Participants: 57 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 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.

1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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