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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 401–425 of 2,594 studies in Biomarkers(page 17 of 104)· 28,180 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)
From OpenAlex; 13,658 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.·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 →
136 adults with T1D (n=90, age 52 years, 58% female, average HbA1c 7.7%) and without T1D (n=46, age 53 years, 57% female, average HbA1c 5.4%) were included. 5 key findings →
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 →
In 320 patients, baseline plasma NfL levels were negatively associated with global cognition (β=-1.28 (-1.81 ; -0.75) P < 0.001), memory (β=-1.48 (-2.38 ; -0.59), P = 0.001), language (β=-1.72(-2.49 ; -0.95) P < 0.001), praxis (β=-2.02 (-2.91 ; -1.13) P < 0.001) and executive functions (β=-0.81, P < 0.001). 5 key findings →
After adjusting for age, health status, and young adult general cognitive ability, plasma NfL level was only significantly associated with processing speed and white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume, but not with other cognitive or neuroimaging measures. 5 key findings →
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 →
Levels of CSF Aβ42 decreased in patients with BD who had an episode during follow-up (BD-E) (N = 22) compared to patients without an episode (BD-NE) (N = 25) during follow-up (P = 0.002). 5 key findings →
Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 demonstrated the highest association for Aβ accumulation in the brain with an AUC 0.76 (95%CI = 0.69, 0.82) at C2 N and 0.80 (95%CI = 0.75, 0.86) at Shimadzu. 5 key findings →
Anti-amyloid treatments for early symptomatic Alzheimer disease have recently become clinically available in some countries, which has greatly increased the need for biomarker confirmation of amyloid pathology. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Neurology·2019-08-01
Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40, especially when combined with age and APOE ε4 status, accurately diagnoses brain amyloidosis and can be used to screen cognitively normal individuals for brain amyloidosis. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2023-11-01
Of 40 included participants (mean [SD] age at death, 88 [8] years; 21 [52%] male), 19 had early-stage dementia with Braak stages III to IV, 13 had resilient brains with similar Braak stages III to IV, and 8 had no dementia (Braak stages 0-II). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2021-02-01
The data set included 18 178 patients, of which 10 991 (60.5%) had MCI and 7187 (39.5%) had dementia (mean [SD] age, 75.8 [6.3] years; 9333 women [51.3%]). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2022-10-03
In this cross-sectional study of plasma biomarkers by race and genetic ancestry, the results indicated that plasma p-tau181, Aβ40, and NFL were lower in African American individuals based on self-reported race but not genetic ancestry. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2021-08-01
Due to trisomy of chromosome 21 and the resultant extra copy of the amyloid precursor protein gene, nearly all adults with Down syndrome develop Alzheimer's disease pathology by the age of 40 years and are at high risk for dementia given their increased life expectancy compared with adults with Down syndrome in the past. 1 key finding →
Of the reference regions used, subcortical white matter, cerebellar white matter, and the pons, alone or in combination, generated the largest effect sizes. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Brain communications·2022-06-14
Although recent studies have demonstrated the prognostic utility of plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer pathology or neurodegeneration, such as pTau-181 and NF-L, whether other plasma biomarkers can further improve prediction of cognitive decline is undetermined. 5 key findings →
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 28,180 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.
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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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.