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 1,401–1,425 of 2,594 studies in Biomarkers (page 57 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.

Utilizing semantic intrusions to identify amyloid positivity in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Neurology 2018-08-03

SIs on the LASSI-L related to PSI and frPSI uniquely differentiated Amy+ and Amy- participants with aMCI and likely reflect deficits with inhibition and source memory in preclinical AD not captured by traditional cognitive measures. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In this article, the challenges faced by several noted population studies for Alzheimer dementia in operationalizing current clinical diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been reviewed. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The budgetary impacts are not insignificant but are small in comparison to the likely market price of any disease-modifying treatments or to the probable costs of missed or inaccurate diagnosis. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Advances in blood biomarkers for Alzheimer disease (AD): A review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences 2024-06-18

Alzheimer disease (AD) and Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) are growing public health challenges globally affecting millions of older adults, necessitating concerted efforts to advance our understanding and management of these conditions. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Pattern expression strengths predicted amyloid status with a sensitivity of 0.94 and a specificity of 0.83. 5 key findings →

Participants: 35 Evidence: low

On achieving conformance, sites can justify a claim that brain amyloid burden reflected by the SUVR is measurable to a within-subject coefficient of variation of no more than 1.94% when the same radiopharmaceutical, scanner, acquisition, and analysis protocols are used. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitively normal APOE ε4 carriers have specific elevation of CSF SNAP-25

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2021-02-11

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) synaptosomal-associated protein 25 (SNAP-25) and neurogranin (Ng) are recently described biomarkers for pre- and postsynaptic integrity known to be elevated in symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Participants: 274 Evidence: low

Isolated forebrain synaptosomes, rather than total homogenates, from atg7 iKO mice demonstrated accumulation of synaptic proteins, suggesting that the synapse might be a vulnerable site for protein homeostasis disruption. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Atrophy patterns in cerebral amyloid angiopathy with and without cortical superficial siderosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Neurology 2018-04-20

Our findings imply that the current version of the Boston criteria may not be sufficient enough to remove non-CAA cases from a cognitively impaired population, especially in the absence of cSS. 4 key findings →

Participants: 27 Evidence: low

Having a LOC HI aged 50's and younger was linked with lower later-life cognitive function at age ~70 than expected. 2 key findings →

Participants: 502 Evidence: moderate

Compared with non-PVE-corrected data, PVE-corrected data yielded significantly higher changes in regional and composite SUV ratio (SUVR) over time ( P = 0.0002 for composite SUVRs). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Among 428 older autopsied persons (mean age at death = 91 years, 70% women) considered for anti-amyloid treatment eligibility assessment, 58% had MCI and 42% had mild-stage Alzheimer dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study found that in preclinical AD, overweight and obesity were associated with better verbal memory in women, whereas obesity was associated with worse global cognition among men. 4 key findings →

Participants: 387 Evidence: low

Understanding how plasma tau biomarkers are influenced by co-pathologies and comorbidities is crucial for their accurate implementation. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau217-based biomarkers showed excellent detecting performance for early amyloid (Thal I-II; area under the curve values > 0.96) and intermediate tau (Braak III-IV; area under the curve values > 0.92). 5 key findings →

Participants: 237 Evidence: low

Of the 944 clinical cases, 13.0% were characterized as probable LATE (2.4% pure LATE and 10.6% LATE+AD) and 23.7% were characterized as probable AD without LATE. 5 key findings →

Participants: 944 Evidence: low

Additionally, growing evidence suggests that neuroinflammation may modulate the effects of tau spread on cognitive impairment in AD [Peretti, Débora E., et al., Brain 147.12 (2024): 4094‐4104.]. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 354 Evidence: moderate

CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 contributed most to identify Aβ-positivity, while continuous Aβ-PET load within the positive range was best predicted by plasma P-tau217. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,053 Evidence: low

This scientific commentary refers to ‘A comprehensive head-to-head comparison of key plasma phosphorylated tau 217 biomarker tests’ by Warmenhoven et al. (https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awae346) and ‘Plasma p-tau217 in Alzheimer’s disease: Lumipulse and ALZpath SIMOA head-to-head comparison’ by Pilotto et al. (https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awae368). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Reversible tau hyperphosphorylation in hibernation: a blood biomarker and brain tissue study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2025-09-29

Tau hyperphosphorylation, a key neuropathological feature of tauopathies such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), also occurs physiologically during mammalian hibernation and is fully reversed upon arousal, offering a unique translational model to study tau metabolism. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Relative to cybrids expressing mtDNA from CH individuals, MCI and AD cybrids contained more phosphorylated tau-217 (p-tau217), p-tau181, and total tau. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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