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 1,176–1,200 of 2,744 studies in Biomarkers(page 48 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.
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 →
There has been a rapid growth in research on peripheral fluid biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementias, because they are non-invasive, relatively inexpensive and easily accessible. 3 key findings →
Asthma participants had widespread and large-magnitude differences in several dMRI metrics, which were indicative of neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration, and which were robustly associated with GFAP and, to a lesser extent, NfL. 5 key findings →
Abnormal levels of plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) were found at the prodromal stage of MCI-LB in association with increased amyloid PET. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neuroscience letters·2023-11-23
The common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus), a small South American monkey, is an important nonhuman primate model in the study of aging and age-related neurodegenerative disease, including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and related dementias. 1 key finding →
Discrimination of disease-related interactions of the core subsystem and FPN was found in AD-spectrum patients, which was the neural circuit fundamental to plasma NFL disrupting cognitive integrity. 3 key findings →
NFL discriminated patients from controls with an area under the curve of 0.914 (95% CI, 0.843-0.984; p < 0.001) (cut-off: 76.46 pg/mL; 94% sensitivity, 76.9% specificity). 5 key findings →
Testing an Alzheimer's disease continuum cohort, the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the p-tau217/Aβ42 ratio reached 0.961, 93%, 92%, and 93%, respectively. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·PloS one·2018-09-25
Among the hip fracture patients, 88.6% of the cognitively normal (Clinical Dementia Rating-CDR 0; n = 70) and 98.8% with mild cognitive impairment (CDR 0.5; n = 81) fell in the abnormal biomarker categories by the A/T/N classification. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2022-05-03
Studying the correlation between cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) metabolites and the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) biomarkers may offer a window to the alterations of the brain metabolome and unveil potential biological mechanisms underlying AD. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2024-06-10
Β-site amyloid precursor protein (APP) cleaving enzyme (BACE1) is a crucial protease in the production of amyloid-β (Aβ) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. 4 key findings →
The definition of Alzheimer's disease (AD) now considers the presence of the markers of amyloid (A), tau deposition (T), and neurodegeneration (N) essential for diagnosis. 2 key findings →
Twenty-nine percent of the cohort had Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores indicative of cognitive impairment or dementia after adjusting for age, sex, and education based on National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center normative data. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Theranostics·2024-07-22
BBBO was achieved in 5 out of 6 subjects with an average volume of 983 ± 626 mm 3 following FUS at the right frontal lobe both in white and gray matter regions. 5 key findings →
Linear models showed that plasma GFAP was significantly higher in αSyn+AD compared to αSyn (β = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.065-0.56, and P = 0.015), after covarying for age at plasma, plasma-to-death interval, and sex; plasma p-tau 181 was not (P = 0.37). 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 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.