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 1,776–1,800 of 2,594 studies in Biomarkers (page 72 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.

Vascular burden influences NfL levels, particularly in A- individuals at a symptomatic stage. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 421 Evidence: moderate

Research Proposal Consciousness Mode Alzheimers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) 2026-04-22

The dominant research paradigm for Alzheimer's disease has focused on amyloid-beta plaqueremoval for over three decades, producing no curative therapy despite billions of dollars ofinvestment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

An accurate and early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is important to select optimal patient care and is critical in current clinical trials targeting core AD neuropathological features. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

BvFTD shows significant symptomatic overlap with non-degenerative primary psychiatric disorders including major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, autism spectrum disorders and even personality disorders. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

These findings indicate that galantamine could be a promising treatment to improve endotoxin-induced cognitive decline and neuroinflammation in neurodegenerative diseases. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Principle component analyses identified 3 factors: trophic (BDNF, VEGF, TGFβ), degenerative (GFAP, NfL), and inflammatory (TNFα, IL-6, IP-10, IL-10). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD), a progressive neurodegenerative disease characterized by impairments of cognitive function as a result of synaptic deficits and neuronal loss, is associated with inflammation. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the aggregation of β-amyloid peptides (Aβ) into amyloid plaques in patient brain. 2 key findings →

Participants: 138 Evidence: low

Basal forebrain cholinergic neurons (BFCNs) are believed to be one of the first cell types to be affected in all forms of AD, and their dysfunction is clinically correlated with impaired short-term memory formation and retrieval. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The Past and the Future of Alzheimer's Disease Fluid Biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2018-01-01

Following the development of the first methods to measure the core Alzheimer's disease (AD) cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers total-tau (T-tau), phosphorylated tau (P-tau) and the 42 amino acid form of amyloid-β (Aβ42), there has been an enormous expansion of this scientific research area. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Human mini-brains (MB) are cerebral organoids that recapitulate in part the complexity of the human brain in a unique three-dimensional in vitro model, yielding discrete brain regions reminiscent of the cerebral cortex. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Our findings identify CatD as the principal intracellular Aβ-degrading protease identified to date, one that regulates Aβ42/40 ratios via differential degradation of Aβ42 vs. Aβ40. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

These results show that different isoforms of Aβ can be detected in the human retina and moreover support the growing number of studies indicating that AD-related pathological changes occurring in the brain could be reflected in the retina. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Intramembrane proteolysis of transmembrane substrates by the presenilin-γ-secretase complex is preceded and regulated by shedding of the substrate's ectodomain by α- or β-secretase. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Therapeutic Inhibition of the Complement System in Diseases of the Central Nervous System

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Frontiers in immunology 2019-03-04

The complement system plays critical roles in development, homeostasis, and regeneration in the central nervous system (CNS) throughout life; however, complement dysregulation in the CNS can lead to damage and disease. 1 key finding →

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