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 126–150 of 1,798 studies in Biomarkers(page 6 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.
IICV was associated with concurrent/baseline performance on several outcomes but did not modify associations between age and cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-03-02
Among 2766 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.9 [3.8] years; 486 [17.9%] Black, 196 [7.1%] Hispanic, and 2007 [73.9%] White), 1311 developed the combined end point of MCI or dementia (849 participants with MCI and 752 participants with dementia). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2025-10-01
Levels of plasma p-tau217 increased significantly in Aβ+ participants before showing significant deceleration (χ2 = 21.7; P Conclusions and relevance This study found that tau PET is valuable for both prognostic and real-time tracking of disease progression. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-01-17
CKD was associated with increased p-tau217 concentrations when measuring p-tau217 by ALZpath and C 2 N methodologies, but the effect was mitigated by the use of %p-tau217. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2019-09-01
These data support the use of cNfL as a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage and indicate that age-specific and sex-specific (and in some cases disease-specific) reference values may be needed. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2023-05-01
Higher eGFR was associated with increased levels of plasma p-tau217, p-tau181, Tau212-221, and Tau181-190 in individuals with cognitive impairment (cohort 1: R range, -0.24 to -0.59; P Conclusions and relevance In this study, CKD was associated with increased plasma levels of soluble tau, but for p-tau217 the associations were considerably lower than the association with Aβ positivity. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2020-03-01
Patients in the CBS-AD group had a longer diagnostic latency, relatively benign clinical trajectory, greater cognitive impairment, and higher APOE-ε4 allele frequency than those in the CBS-non-AD group (AUC, 0.80-0.87; P Conclusions and relevance These findings suggest that studies focusing on the PSP-RS subtype are likely to miss a large number of patients with underlying PSP tau pathology. 2 key findings →
Plasma p-tau217 showed larger fold-changes and better accuracy for detecting AD pathology in symptomatic individuals, with greater cross-platform agreement than other p-tau variants. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·PLoS genetics·2013-08-22
The primary constituents of plaques (Aβ42/Aβ40) and neurofibrillary tangles (tau and phosphorylated forms of tau [ptau]) are the current leading diagnostic and prognostic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers for AD. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2024-01-01
Overall the study included 199 participants with iRBD, 20 hyposmic participants with available dopamine transporter single-photon emission computed tomography, 146 nonmanifest GBA1N409S gene carriers, 21 GBA1N409S gene carrier patients with PD, 50 patients with sporadic PD, and 140 healthy controls. 3 key findings →
We demonstrated that peripherin is distributed in sciatic nerve, and to a lesser extent spinal cord tissue lysates, but not in brain or extra-neural tissues. 3 key findings →
Plasma p-tau217 may capture earlier Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related cognitive and brain atrophy hallmarks in females compared to males, possibly reflective of increased susceptibility to AD pathophysiology. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·JAMA·2024-10-15
This Swedish study of over 1,200 people with memory symptoms found that a blood test combining p-tau217 with an amyloid ratio (the 'Amyloid Probability Score 2') was far more accurate at identifying Alzheimer's disease than doctors' clinical judgment alone. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Nature Medicine·2025
This large multi-country study tested a fully automated, commercially available blood test (Lumipulse platform, measuring p-tau217) in nearly 1,800 people across memory clinics and, notably, primary care doctors' offices in Sweden, Spain, and Italy. 5 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.