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 101–125 of 2,594 studies in Biomarkers (page 5 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.

The results indicate that lithium treatment may have beneficial effects on cognitive performance in subjects with MCI and AD dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 199 Evidence: high

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 →

Design: case-control study Participants: 2,025 Evidence: moderate

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 →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 463 Evidence: moderate

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 →

Design: cohort study Participants: 11,410 Evidence: moderate

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 →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 784 Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau217 was the highest-performing biomarker for identifying biologically defined Alzheimer's disease, with pooled sensitivity of 88·1% (95% CI 86·7-89·5, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity of 88·7% (87·4-89·9, moderate certainty of evidence), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 91·1% (88·9-92·4, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio of 50·7 (40·6-63·4). p-tau181 pooled sensitivity was 80·5% (78·4-82·4, low certainty of evidence), specificity was 76·4% (74·1-78·6, low certainty of evidence), AUROC was 81·5% (80·2-82·9, low certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 13·4 (11·4-16·7). p-tau205 pooled sensitivity was 76·6% (70·7-81·6, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 86·0% (78·6-91·2, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 85·1% (80·7-89·6, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 20·2 (10·5-38·7). p-tau212 pooled sensitivity was 84·5% (75·5-90·6, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 87·3% (79·5-92·5, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 90·3% (86·6-94·1, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 41·2 (22·0-77·3). p-tau231 pooled sensitivity was 75·2% (71·3-78·8, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 75·3% (71·2-78·9, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 80·2 (77·6-82·7, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 9·3 (7·0-12·2). 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

These results confirm that blood-based pTau217 is a reliable marker of amyloid pathology with significant implications for clinical practice in the AD continuum. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Neuroinflammation is a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and both positive and negative associations of individual inflammation-related markers with brain structure and cognitive function have been described. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 295 Evidence: moderate

CSF p-tau181 and p-tau231 biomarkers distinguished AD, MCI, and healthy populations. 2 key findings →

Participants: 5,017 Evidence: low

Our findings suggest that mid-life serum AD biomarkers could be associated with accelerated cognitive decline from mid- to late life in women. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 192 Evidence: moderate

In community and clinical settings, SCC predict both dementia and depression in the absence of dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 6,357 Evidence: moderate

Comparable performance of CSF and blood NfL in many groups demonstrates the promise of NfL as a noninvasive biomarker of neurodegeneration; however, its utility in clinically meaningful scenarios requires greater scrutiny. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Sleep deprivation and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Sleep 2018-05-01

Study objectives To investigate the cumulative effect of five consecutive nights of partial sleep deprivation (PSD) on a panel of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in healthy adults. 1 key finding →

Participants: 13 Evidence: high

In our study, in addition to PD, NFL was suggested to be a global diagnostic biomarker for neurodegenerative diseases. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 36 Evidence: high

At present we cannot recommend CSF NfH and NfL levels for use as a screening test in the diagnosis of dementia because of the rather small effect size. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 818 Evidence: high

This study suggests that plasma Aβ42/Aβ40, as determined by this MS-based assay, has potential value as an accurate and cost-effective tool to identify individuals in the earliest stages of AD, supporting its implementation in clinical trials, preventative strategies and clinical practice. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 200 Evidence: moderate

The distribution of tau pathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD) shows remarkable inter-individual heterogeneity, including hemispheric asymmetry. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 102 Evidence: moderate

These findings suggest that C 2 N Diagnostics' MS-based plasma biomarkers can detect brain amyloid and tau with high accuracy prior to dementia and could aid in identifying candidates for clinical trials or therapeutic intervention. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 304 Evidence: moderate

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 →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 7,105 Evidence: moderate

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 →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 512 Evidence: moderate

Serum GFAP levels correlate with astrocyte reactivity, post-mortem brain atrophy and neurofibrillary tangles

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub 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 →

Design: cohort Participants: 139 Evidence: moderate

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 →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 842 Evidence: moderate

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 →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 609 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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