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 801–825 of 1,798 studies in Biomarkers(page 33 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.
= 0.81). NfL levels were not significantly associated with GDS-15 in a population of community-dwelling older adults without dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·JAMA Psychiatry·2026-01-21
This cohort study examines the association of serum hyperphosphorylated tau and neurofilament light chain concentrations with psychosis in Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →
CSF biomarkers and amyloid positron emission tomography reflect different aspects of Alzheimer's disease brain pathology, and therefore, less-than-perfect correspondence is expected. 1 key finding →
Our objective was to evaluate the CSF phospho-Tau181/total-Tau (p/t-Tau) ratio to distinguish between the two main forms of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD): FTLD with TDP-43 (FTLD-TDP) and FTLD with Tau inclusions (FTLD-Tau). 2 key findings →
These findings provide additional insight into gut microbial involvement in AD and add to the growing understanding of the gut-brain axis. 2 key findings →
Abeta (1-42/1-40) and GFAP independently associated with amyloid PET status (p = 0.009 and p < 0.001 respectively), and GFAP and NfL independently associated with syndrome diagnosis (p = 0.001 and p = 0.048 respectively). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Nature medicine·2024-01-26
Although loss of TAR DNA-binding protein 43 kDa (TDP-43) splicing repression is well documented in postmortem tissues of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), whether this abnormality occurs during early-stage disease remains unresolved. 2 key findings →
A group of living former NFL players with cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms had higher tau levels measured by PET than controls in brain regions that are affected by CTE and did not have elevated amyloid-beta levels. 2 key findings →
Cerebrospinal fluid and positron emission tomography biomarkers accurately predict an underlying Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology; however, they represent either invasive or expensive diagnostic tools. 1 key finding →
Despite a variety of testing approaches, it is often difficult to make an accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), especially at an early stage of the disease. 2 key findings →
Plasma p-tau217 was accurate for discriminating between Core1+ and Core1- patients (area under the curve = 0.92) with an optimal cut-off value of 0.274 pg/mL, revealing good accuracy (86.29%), positive predictive value (PPV; 88.18%), and negative predictive value (NPV; 83.09%). 4 key findings →
p-Tau217 levels were highest in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, whereas NfL levels were highest in patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 5 key findings →
On NULISA, phosphorylated tau (p-tau217, p-tau231, and p-tau181), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT-tau) showed the top significant association with amyloid beta (Aβ) positron emission tomography (PET) status, followed by the neuroinflammation markers C-C motif ligand 2 (CCL2), chitotriosidase 1 (CHIT1) and interleukin-8 (CXCL8), and the synaptic marker neurogranin (NRGN). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2024-10-25
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a debilitating neurodegenerative disorder characterized by brain aggregation of β-amyloid (Aβ) peptides and phosphorylated tau (P-tau) proteins. 3 key findings →
Worse overall and local LC-EC integrity, indicated by lower fractional anisotropy (FA) and higher mean diffusivity (MD), was related to elevated concentrations of plasma phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau181), p-tau217, and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). 5 key findings →
After the median time of incident TBI, Aβ42/Aβ40 levels remained lower for 9.3 years, and pTau181, NfL, and GFAP remained elevated for 8.5, >13.8, and 12.7 years, respectively. 5 key findings →
CBS Aβ+ group showed a reduced Aβ42/40 ratio, with elevated phosphorylated tau (p-tau)181, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light (NfL) concentrations, while CBS Aβ- group only showed elevated NfL concentration compared to CU. 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 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.