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 76–100 of 1,798 studies in Biomarkers(page 4 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.
The results indicate that lithium treatment may have beneficial effects on cognitive performance in subjects with MCI and AD dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2012-03-20
Recently, several genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have led to the discovery of nine new loci of genetic susceptibility in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
This fully-automated and available blood-based biomarker assay therefore may be useful for early detection, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of AD. 5 key findings →
The prospective cohort data from the JPSC-AD will provide valuable insights regarding the risk factors and etiology of dementia as well as for the development of predictive models and diagnostic markers for the future onset of dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2025-06-20
These findings suggest that the plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 may be useful in identifying individuals with very low levels of amyloid pathology, whereas p-tau, GFAP, and NfL may be useful in staging disease progression. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2026-03-02
Across the cohorts, each 10-year increase in BAI was associated with a 39% higher risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.21-1.59]; P Conclusions and relevance In this IPD meta-analysis, a higher sleep EEG-based BAI was associated with a higher risk of incident dementia. 3 key findings →
Plasma p-tau217/Aβ42 has high performance in detecting cerebral AD pathologies, thus offering a promising tool for clinical diagnosis and community screening of AD. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Brain·2024-05-03
The main findings demonstrated an association between serum GFAP level and post-mortem tau pathology (β = 12.85; P < 0.001) that was independent of amyloid deposits (β = 13.23; P = 0.02). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2019-09-01
The mean (SD) age of the 842 participants in cohort 1 was 72 (5.6) years, with a range of 59 to 88 years, and 446 (52.5%) were female. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2023-02-01
For all 4 phosphorylation sites assessed in CSF, p-tau was significantly more closely associated with amyloid-PET values than tau-PET values (p-tau181 difference, 13%; 95% CI, 3%-22%; P = .006; p-tau217 difference, 11%; 95% CI, 3%-20%; P = .003; p-tau231 difference, 15%; 95% CI, 5%-22%; P Conclusions and relevance Results of this cross-sectional study of 2 observational cohorts suggest that the p-tau abnormality as an early event in AD pathogenesis was associated with amyloid-β accumulation and highlights the need for careful interpretation of p-tau biomarkers in the context of the amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration, or A/T/(N), framework. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2019-08-20
High and increasing blood pressure from early adulthood into midlife seems to be associated with increased WMHV and smaller brain volumes at 69-71 years of age. 5 key findings →
These two conclusions support a dynamic biomarker model in which Alzheimer's disease is characterized first by the appearance of amyloidosis and later by tauopathy, with tauopathy being the proteinopathy associated with clinical symptoms. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2020-10-01
The largest cohort, the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer Disease Study (n = 3154), was the PET screening cohort used for a secondary prevention trial designed to slow cognitive decline associated with brain amyloidosis. 3 key findings →
Design:meta-analysisParticipants: 3,154Evidence: high
To define Alzheimer's disease with biomarkers rather than clinical assessment, we assessed prediction of research-diagnosed disease status using these biomarkers and tested genetic variants associated with the biomarkers that may reflect more accurately the risk of biochemically defined Alzheimer's disease instead of the risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Brain communications·2023-03-06
An accurate blood test for Alzheimer's disease that is sensitive to preclinical proteinopathy and cognitive decline has clear implications for early detection and secondary prevention. 2 key findings →
It is currently unclear whether plasma biomarkers can be used as independent prognostic tools to predict changes associated with early Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-06-03
In the precuneus, we observed an inverted U-shaped pattern of novelty-related activity across groups, with higher activity in SCD and MCI compared with HC, but not in patients with AD who showed relatively lower activity than MCI. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Brain communications·2021-09-06
We demonstrated that higher amyloid burden as measured by both CSF amyloid beta 42/40 ratio and non-displaceable binding potential in the posterior cingulate cortex was associated with lower functional connectivity in the default mode network. 3 key findings →
Blood exosomes, which are extracellular vesicles secreted by living cells into the circulating blood, are regarded as a relatively noninvasive novel tool for monitoring brain physiology and disease states. 2 key findings →
Emerging plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease might be non-invasive tools to trace early Alzheimer's disease-related abnormalities such as the accumulation of amyloid-beta peptides, neurofibrillary tau tangles, glial activation and neurodegeneration. 4 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.