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 776–800 of 2,594 studies in Biomarkers (page 32 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)

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.

Abnormal plasma Aβ42/40 ratio identified older adult groups with lower memory scores, higher dementia risks, and higher ADRD biomarker levels, with potential implications for population screening. 2 key findings →

Participants: 847 Evidence: moderate

The clinical utility of plasma phosphorylated tau at threonine 217 (p-tau217) levels as a diagnostic tool for cognitive disorders in real-world settings remains uncertain. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

aECAD was associated with significantly worse scores in processing speed (β = -0.19, p = 0.004) and executive function (β = -0.20, p = 0.009) domains after controlling for age, sex, education, race, and ethnicity. 3 key findings →

Participants: 182 Evidence: low

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and amyloid- and tau-PET-positive status demonstrated higher p-tau217. 5 key findings →

Participants: 233 Evidence: low

Both Mann-Whitney tests and ANCOVA found significant differences between groups racialized as AA or NWH with respect to global 11[C]-Pittsburgh Compound B (PiB) standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR), cortical thickness values, p-tau181, and p-tau231 values (p < 0.05). 3 key findings →

Participants: 260 Evidence: low

Optimizing timing and cost-effective use of plasma biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2025-08-20

When benchmarked against amyloid PET, plasma biomarker-based stratification achieves an optimal balance between diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness. 5 key findings →

Participants: 143 Evidence: low

Significant interaction effects were observed: MoCA (β = -1.86×10-4, P = 0.006) and PACC (β = -4.0×10-5, P = 0.004), indicating HDL moderates the negative association between NfL and cognition. 3 key findings →

Participants: 417 Evidence: low

Major depressive disorder (MDD) has been associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline and neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer's disease (AD), prompting interest in peripheral biomarkers related to amyloid metabolism as well as neuroaxonal and astroglial injury. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Baseline NfL and GFAP did not differ between patients with or without ARIA (ln[NfL] ECLIA 1.24 ± 0.38 pg/mL vs 1.25 ± 0.40 pg/mL, p = 0.77; ln[NfL] Simoa 2.87 ± 0.47 pg/mL vs 2.98 ± 0.40 pg/mL, p = 0.30, ln[GFAP] ECLIA 4.95 ± 0.36 pg/mL vs 4.88 ± 0.47 pg/mL, p = 0.69). 4 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Previous studies demonstrated that plasma neurofilament light chain (NFL) played important predictive roles in disease progression and neurodegeneration in the preclinical phase of familial Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Comparing those having MCI, both CU and SCD participants had significantly lower amyloid PET standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) (p < 0.001; p = 0.005). 4 key findings →

Participants: 66 Evidence: low

Besides age and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), significant associations were found between plasma biomarkers and clusters related to hemoglobin, red blood cell distribution, and inflammation. 5 key findings →

Participants: 305 Evidence: low

Interquartile range differences in amyloid beta 42/40, percent phosphorylated tau 217 (%p-tau217), and Amyloid Probability Score 2 were associated with 1.29 (P = 0.09), 1.38 (P < 0.001), and 1.20 (P = 0.05) increases, respectively, in the hazard of progression from A- to A+ and 0.27 (P = 0.16), 0.50 (P = 0.007), and 0.28 (P = 0.15) Centiloid/year increases, respectively, in annual rate of amyloid PET change. 5 key findings →

Participants: 290 Evidence: low

The distribution of subjects between ES and ERS among the groups differed considerably, as grouping allocated 32 subjects to ES group 2, but only 2 to ERS group 2. 5 key findings →

Participants: 154 Evidence: low

Compared to Simoa biomarkers, APEX-Aβ42 showed significantly higher correlations with amyloid PET retention values and excellent diagnostic performance (sensitivity 100%, specificity 93.3%, area under the curve 0.995). 4 key findings →

Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate

Using a panel of biomarkers was significantly better at predicting disease stage compared with p-tau217 alone; however, the difference was dependent upon p-tau217 assay. 5 key findings →

Participants: 387 Evidence: low

↑ 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 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed