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 1–25 of 102 studies in Biomarkers scoring ≤ 29 out of 100 (page 1 of 5) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

A 77-year-old woman with mild cognitive impairment was referred to 18F-florbetapir positron emission tomography (PET) to assess the indication of a disease-modifying drug against Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer Disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by amyloid-β deposition, tau pathology, synaptic dysfunction, neuronal injury and cerebral atrophy. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Qualitative and quantitative comparison of brain proteins in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Biological chemistry Hoppe-Seyler 1989-11-01

In human brain extracts, most proteins of pathological interest in Alzheimer's disease are insoluble and their analysis is often performed on denatured and reduced samples by immunoblotting after electrophoresis on polyacrylamide gel in presence of sodium dodecyl sulfate. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Research Proposal Consciousness Mode Alzheimers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 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

Manganese-superoxide dismutase (Mn-SOD) was localized in the cerebral cortex and hippocampus of patients with Alzheimer-type senile dementia (ATD) by immunocytochemistry and the relationship of Mn-SOD with two major pathological features of ATD, i.e., senile plaques and neurofibrillar tangles (NFTs), was examined. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The research focuses on the use of biomarkers to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in living individuals. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Glial activation and neuroinflammation play significant roles in apoptosis as well as in the development of cognitive and memory deficits. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

INTRODUCTIONNovel capillary-blood collection methods have not yet been evaluated for a wide range of central nervous system (CNS) and neurodegenerative disease-related proteins. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimers disease blood biomarkers reveal proteomic modules of disease progression

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-19

Alzheimers disease (AD) unfolds over decades preceding cognitive symptoms, and measuring the full scope of its molecular complexity remains difficult. 1 key finding →

Participants: 11,042 Evidence: low

Plasma inflammatory biomarker associations with Alzheimers disease clinical stage and CSF biomarkers: evaluation of sex effects

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-17

BackgroundAlzheimers disease (AD) is characterized by amyloid beta and tau accumulation accompanied by altered inflammatory responses. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 261 Evidence: moderate

Exploring Machine Learning Models to Uncover Pathways in ALS Pathogenesis Using Immunohistochemical Features

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-20

Hexanucleotide repeat expansions in C9orf72 are the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia, yet the predictive information contained within associated inflammatory and proteinopathy markers remains incompletely characterised. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Adult Vaccination History and Plasma Biomarker Signatures in the Asymptomatic PREVENT-AD Cohort

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-27

BackgroundEpidemiological studies increasingly associate several adult vaccinations with lower risk of Alzheimers disease (AD) and dementia, but the biological mechanisms underlying these observations remain unclear. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 192 Evidence: moderate

Genetic associations with EEG signatures in mild cognitive impairment: insights into Alzheimer's disease pathophysiology

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-28

Genome-wide genotypes were quality-controlled, imputed, functionally annotated (yielding 16,935 gene regions comprising 90,607 functional variants), and associated with latent EEG features using Bayesian reduced rank regression. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

A data-driven regional amyloid PET score predicts cognitive decline beyond Centiloid

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-31

BackgroundThe Centiloid (CL) scale standardizes global amyloid PET quantification and is widely used to define amyloid positivity. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 71 Evidence: high

BackgroundFluid biomarkers enable the demonstration of the biological effects of novel therapies in Alzheimers disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 65 Evidence: high

Analytical validation and amyloid-status discrimination of a high-throughput, research-use-only plasma p-Tau217 immunoassay

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-02

BackgroundPlasma phosphorylated tau at threonine 217 (p-Tau217) is a leading blood-based biomarker for Alzheimers disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 449 Evidence: moderate

Proteoform-resolved neoGFAP as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker across the TBI--MCI--AD continuum in Veterans

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-03

Service members with traumatic brain injury are at approximately two- to four-fold higher risk of Alzheimers disease or related dementias than those without such an injury, with risk increasing with injury severity. 5 key findings →

Participants: 57 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed