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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,301–1,325 of 2,594 studies in Biomarkers(page 53 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)
From OpenAlex; 13,658 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Nature aging·2025-02-12
The Aβ 42 /Aβ 40 ratio in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and the concentrations of neurofilament light (NfL) and total tau (t-tau) are changed in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) 1 , but their neurobiological correlates are not entirely understood. 2 key findings →
Insufficient amyloid marker test repeatability may result either from imperfection of the used laboratorial techniques or inadequate selection of control groups with their comorbidities. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Brain connectivity·2020-11-23
Glucose hypometabolism in temporoparietal lobes was significantly associated with altered EEG functional connectivity of the same regions of interest in clinically diagnosed MCI and AD patients and in patients with biomarker-verified AD pathology. 5 key findings →
This study confirms strong concordance between CSF biomarkers and PET Aβ-amyloid status is independent of immunoassay platform, supporting their utility as biomarkers in clinical practice for the diagnosis of AD and for participant enrichment in clinical trials. 1 key finding →
Differences observed in technical and diagnostic performance of the two assays may depend on matrix-specific amyloid processing, suggesting that further studies should be carried to standardize amyloid ratio measurement in plasma. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Journal of neurology·2023-02-20
We aimed to investigate the association of subjective sleep characteristics and plasma Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers in older cognitively unimpaired adults with higher amyloid-β (Aβ) burden. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2016-08-17
These findings suggest that a simple blood-based signature not only provides estimates of NAB but also predicts cognitive decline and disease progression, identifying individuals at risk of progressing toward AD at the prodromal and preclinical stages. 4 key findings →
More than 16 million Americans living with cognitive impairment warrant a diagnostic evaluation to determine the cause of this disorder. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurology·1990-01-01
We quantified glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) using immunoblot techniques and anti-GFAP, in unfractionated homogenates of different brain regions from Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurology·2011-02-16
Hippocampal atrophy and amyloid deposition seem to dissociate during the evolution of MCI, the atrophy increasing clearly and [(11)C] PiB retention changing modestly when conversion to AD occurs. 4 key findings →
The results for both (11)C-PiB and (18)F-NAV4694 can now be expressed in centiloids, an important step that should allow better clinical and research use of Aβ imaging. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·PloS one·2015-05-20
Exposure to air pollutants, including particulate matter, results in activation of the brain inflammatory response and Alzheimer disease (AD)-like pathology in dogs and humans. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Redox biology·2018-07-11
Chronic neuroinflammation is a hallmark of the onset and progression of brain proteinopathies such as Alzheimer disease (AD) and it is suspected to participate in the neurodegenerative process. 1 key finding →
Amyloid PET imaging is a novel diagnostic test that can detect in living humans one of the two defining pathologic lesions of Alzheimer disease, amyloid-β deposition in the brain. 3 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 28,180 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.