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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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.
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 276–300 of 1,798 studies in Biomarkers(page 12 of 72)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.
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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2020-05-26
We enrolled a cohort of 1070 PSEN1 E280A mutation carriers and 1074 non-carriers with baseline assessments; of these participants, longitudinal measures (with a mean follow-up of 6 years) were available for 242 mutation carriers and 262 non-carriers. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2022-06-01
This study suggests that early tau deposition may follow multiple trajectories during preclinical AD and may involve several cortical regions. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2023-05-03
Pericyte damage, reflected by CSF PDGFRβ, may be involved in age-related BBB disruption together with neuroinflammation, but is not related to Alzheimer-related pathologic changes. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2025-09-01
Of 18 293 participants included in the parent study, scan images were available for 10 774 (59%), of which Centiloids were successfully calculated for 10 361 (96%). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-06-05
Plasma p-tau217 levels showed a significant increase across advancing AD stages, with all between-group comparisons remaining significant after false discovery rate adjustment ( p p = 0.002) and CSF p-tau181 (β = 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-5.0, p = 0.001). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-02-20
Across the cohort of 212 individuals with SCD+ (M(Age) = 69.17 years, F 42.45%), 258 individuals with MCI (M(Age) = 72.93, F 43.80%), and 195 individuals with dementia (M(Age) = 74.07, F 48.72%), no main effect of education (ß = 0.52, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.58), but a significant education-by-group interaction on CL values, was found ( p = 0.024) using linear regression modeling. 1 key finding →
Obicetrapib significantly slowed AD biomarker progression over 12 months in participants with ASCVD, with the greatest effects in ApoE4 carriers. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-08-19
A total of 807 K-ROAD participants (median age 72.0 years, 58.7% female) and 230 ADNI participants (median age 70.9 years, 49.1% female) were analyzed. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Brain·2025-10-03
Using the Swedish BioFINDER-2 cohort [n = 1702, 50.7% male, mean (standard deviation) age 68.4 (12.2) years], we compared the associations between tau/Aβ-PET load and fluid biomarkers alone versus biomarkers in a ratio with a reference protein (Aβ40 or np-tau) in univariate linear regression models. 5 key findings →
Genome-wide significant loci were identified for all biomarkers, including DACT1-DAAM1 (pTau217), KCNJ3 (pTau181), KLHDC4 (NfL), SLC10A7 (GFAP), and PPP4R2 (composite score). 4 key findings →
Multiple proteinopathies commonly coexist in neurodegenerative diseases, making it essential to evaluate plasma biomarker performance in these complex diseases. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2025-11-28
Serum p-tau217 levels were increased in individuals with iRBD and cognitive impairment (CI) on testing defined as Montreal Cognitive Assessment <26 or subthreshold parkinsonism. p-Tau217 differentiated individuals with iRBD who developed PD with CI (PD-CI) or DLB from PD phenoconverters with normal cognition (area under curve [AUC] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.93) and from iRBD non-phenoconverters with normal cognition (AUC = 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.89). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Nature medicine·2022-09-22
Unlike familial Alzheimer's disease, we have been unable to accurately predict symptom onset in presymptomatic familial frontotemporal dementia (f-FTD) mutation carriers, which is a major hurdle to designing disease prevention trials. 1 key finding →
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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.