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 201–225 of 1,798 studies in Biomarkers(page 9 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2020-09-29
Higher concentrations of serum biomarkers were associated with the development of clinical AD; especially, the time-specific associations were notable: t-tau 8 to 16 years, and Nf-L and GFAP 4 to 8 years prior to clinical AD. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-01-29
One hundred eighty-seven participants with brain autopsy (NPDx1: AD n = 85; other n = 102; mean age: 74.3 years, 38.5% female; interval blood collection-death [mean ± SD]: 2.8 ± 1.6 years) and 67 NC without brain autopsy (mean age: 66.5 years, 71.6% female) were included. pTau217, but not GFAP, levels increased stepwise with increasing Thal phases (β = 0.61; 95% CI [0.24-0.97] to β = 0.91 [0.55-1.27]) and Braak stages (β = 0.59; [0.16-1.01] to β = 0.74 [0.33-1.15]). 5 key findings →
Plasma phosphorylated-tau181 (p-tau181) showed the potential for Alzheimer's diagnosis and prognosis, but its role in detecting cerebral pathologies is unclear. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·PloS one·2013-09-20
We developed and validated a novel ECL based sandwich immunoassay for the NfL protein in serum (NfL(Umea47:3)); levels in ALS were more than 20-fold higher than in controls. 2 key findings →
The core Alzheimer's disease (AD) cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers; amyloid-β (Aß), total tau (t-tau), and phosphorylated tau (p-tau181), are strong indicators of the presence of AD pathology, but do not correlate well with disease progression, and can be difficult to implement in longitudinal studies where repeat biofluid sampling is required. 3 key findings →
High levels of Aβ42 and tau in both young controls and DS suggest these proteins are produced by normal physiological processes, whereas the changes seen in later life are consistent with emergence of pathological alterations. 4 key findings →
Plasma p-tau biomarkers had a greater diagnostic performance and larger effect sizes compared to t-tau and Aβ42/40 assays in detecting Aβ pathology. 5 key findings →
We found that plasma p-tau217 was more associated with cognitive performance than p-tau181 and p-tau231 and that this relationship was particularly strong for memory scores (TRIAD: βp-tau217 = -0.53, βp-tau181 = -0.35 and βp-tau231 = -0.24; BioFINDER-2: βp-tau217 = -0.52, βp-tau181 = -0.24 and βp-tau231 = -0.29). 4 key findings →
(N = 558, mean age = 69.2 ± 8.8, 56.5% women) were diagnosed with AD (n = 274, considering dementia and MCI stages), frontotemporal dementia (FTD, n = 55), Lewy body disease (LBD, n = 40, considering MCI and dementia stages), other neurodegenerative diseases, n = 57 (e.g Supranuclear Palsy, Corticobasal syndrome), non-neurodegenerative cognitive impairment (NND, n = 79, e.g. vascular lesions, epilepsy or psychiatric disorders) or subjective cognitive impairment (SCI, n = 53). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Biomarker research·2022-12-27
Deamidation products of blood albumin were significantly elevated in vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia (P < 0.05), but less so in PD. 5 key findings →
ARIA were infrequent. In donanemab-treated patients, mildly symptomatic ARIA-E occurred in 10% (2/20) and asymptomatic ARIA-H in 15% (3/20). 5 key findings →
In the multivariable linear regression models, a doubling of serum molybdenum level was associated with 9.4% higher Aβ42/40 ratio (95% CI: 0.8, 18.6%; p = 0.03), and a doubling of serum cobalt level with 17.5% higher p-tau181 level (95% CI: 3.1, 33.8%; p = 0.02). 5 key findings →
This study validated PrecivityAD2, a mass-spectrometry blood test made by C2N Diagnostics that combines two markers (%p-tau217 and the amyloid-beta 42/40 ratio) into a single 'Amyloid Probability Score 2.' 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2021-09-01
In this largely presymptomatic population, these results suggest subtle differences across plasma p-tau species and platforms for the prediction of amyloid and tau PET and magnetic resonance imaging measures of cerebrovascular and Alzheimer-related pathology. 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.