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 2,226–2,250 of 2,594 studies in Biomarkers (page 90 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.

The accumulation of aggregated amyloid-β (Aβ) in amyloid plaques is a neuropathological hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The mechanisms involved in Alzheimer's disease are not completely understood and how glial cells contribute to this neurodegenerative disease remains to be elucidated. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our results suggest that in AD patients, there is a reduction of NFL thickness evaluated in vivo by OCT and this morphological abnormality is related to a retinal dysfunction as revealed by abnormal PERG responses. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The results of the present study confirm in vivo anti-inflammatory actions of CBD, emphasizing the importance of this compound as a novel promising pharmacological tool capable of attenuating Abeta evoked neuroinflammatory responses. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Pathophysiology of hepatic encephalopathy: a new look at ammonia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Metabolic brain disease 2002-12-01

Damage to astrocytes characterized by cell swelling (acute liver failure) or Alzheimer Type II astrocytosis (chronic liver failure) can be readily reproduced by acute or chronic exposure of these cells in vitro to pathophysiologically relevant concentrations of ammonia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In sporadic Alzheimer's disease (AD), impaired Aβ removal contributes to elevated extracellular Aβ levels that drive amyloid plaque pathogenesis. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Citrullinated proteins are the products of a posttranslational process in which arginine residues undergo modification into citrulline residues when catalyzed by peptidylarginine deiminases (PADs) in a calcium ion-dependent manner. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

In Alzheimer's disease (AD), amyloid plaques are surrounded by reactive astrocytes with an increased expression of intermediate filaments including glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Metallothionein-III (MT-III), a brain-specific member of the metallothionein family of metal-binding proteins, is abundant in glutamatergic neurons that release zinc from their synaptic terminals, such as hippocampal pyramidal neurons and dentate granule cells. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Oxidative stress and mitochondrial damage are implicated in the evolution of neurodegenerative diseases. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The present findings suggest that Abeta deposition disrupts retinal structure and may contribute to the visual deficits seen in aged APPswe/PS1DeltaE9 tg mice. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The epsilon4 allele of apolipoprotein E (apoE) is associated with increased risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and poor outcome after brain injury. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study was designed to investigate the role of serum proteins, microglia, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) positive cells and dystrophic neurites in the genesis of cerebral amyloid. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neurofilament protein in cerebrospinal fluid: a marker of white matter changes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of neuroscience research 2001-11-01

The objective of this study was to compare cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of the light subtype of the neurofilament proteins (NFL), tau, and beta-amyloid42 (Abeta42) in individuals with moderate or severe white matter changes (WMC) and in those with mild or no WMC. 3 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