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
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 501–525 of 2,744 studies in Biomarkers(page 21 of 110)· 28,580 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; 14,058 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 61 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2025-12-15
A total of 365 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.4 [7.9] years; 192 female [52.6%]) in the ADNI tau-PET group and 524 participants (mean [SD] age, 77.1 [7.9] years; 268 male [51.1%]) in the ADNI p-tau217 group were selected from the 998 individuals who were Aβ+ in the ADNI cohort and used to generate tau-clinical mismatch models with 55.6% to 57.1% classified as canonical (CDR-SB commensurate to tau), 23.7% to 24.7% as resilient (CDR-SB tau). 5 key findings →
To improve clinical utility, a dual threshold approach was applied to maximize predictive values and positive likelihood ratios while minimizing the proportion of indeterminate results. 5 key findings →
Plasma p-tau217 demonstrated the strongest discrimination of Core1 positivity (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.95) and showed the steepest increase with disease progression. 4 key findings →
Greater MVPA (β = -0.107; p = 0.013) and CRF (β = -0.114; p = 0.027) were associated with lower NfL, but not Aβ PET, p-tau217, Aβ1-42/1-40, or GFAP. 4 key findings →
Aβ-independent factors included hemoglobin and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for p-tau217 and hemoglobin, eGFR, and triiodothyronine (T3) for GFAP and NfL. 5 key findings →
BackgroundDiabetes has been linked to increased prevalence of dementia, but the link between diabetic retinopathy (DR) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Sleep·2025-12-11
The study included 44 iRBD patients (81.8% males, mean age 71.0 ± 6.4 years), 55 HC (66.3% males, mean age 69.1 ± 5.5 years), and 28 AD patients (82.1% males, mean age of 70.4 ± 6.7 years). iRBD patients showed significantly higher plasma NfL and GFAP levels and similar pTau181 levels compared to HC. 5 key findings →
White matter hyperintensities (WMH) is mainly caused by cerebrovascular injury and may also increase the possibilities of progression to Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
In vitro studies of autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease implicate longer amyloid-β peptides in disease pathogenesis; however, less is known about the behaviour of these mutations in vivo. 2 key findings →
Regular physical activity was positively associated with CSF Aβ42 (p < 0.001) and Aβ42/40 (p < 0.001), while it was negatively associated with p-tau/Aβ42 (p < 0.001) and t-tau/Aβ42 (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Lumipulse and IP-MS Aβ42/40 exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy for detecting an abnormal amyloid-PET (areas under the curve [AUCs] of 0.81 and 0.84, respectively). 5 key findings →
At a care setting-agnostic cutoff of 0.934 pg/ml, high negative predictive value (NPV) (93.8%) and acceptable positive predictive value (PPV) (46.6%) were observed against amyloid-positron emission tomography (PET). 4 key findings →
This study directly compared four different commercial/lab p-tau217 blood tests (Lumipulse, ALZpath, Johnson & Johnson, and NULISA) in 344 people from two community cohorts, most of whom were cognitively normal or had only mild changes. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2012-04-09
This cross-sectional evaluation of the NIA-AA criteria for preclinical AD indicates that the 1-3 staging criteria coupled with stage 0 and SNAP categories classify 97% of CN subjects from a population-based sample, leaving only 3% unclassified. 2 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%),
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 (3.6% 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.