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 40 studies in Biomarkers published 2012 (page 1 of 2) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 40 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.

Recently, several genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have led to the discovery of nine new loci of genetic susceptibility in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 2,025 Evidence: moderate

This cross-sectional evaluation of the NIA-AA criteria for preclinical AD indicates that the 1-3 staging criteria coupled with stage 0 and SNAP categories classify 97% of CN subjects from a population-based sample, leaving only 3% unclassified. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Ascertainment of the -synuclein level in CSF somewhat improves the differential diagnosis of AD vs DLB and PDD when combined with established AD biomarkers. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 453 Evidence: low

Mean age of completers (n = 30) was 73.5 years and mean Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) score was 22.5. 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high

Plasma biomarkers associated with the apolipoprotein E genotype and Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2012-10-01

Plasma biomarker results confirm cerebrospinal fluid studies reporting increased levels of pancreatic polypeptide and N-terminal protein B-type brain natriuretic peptide in patients with AD and mild cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The objective of the present study was to assess the neuroprotective role of rutin (vitamin P) and delineate the mechanism of action. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

These results suggest that 4-O-methylhonokiol inhibits LPS-induced amyloidogenesis via anti-inflammatory mechanisms. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Different authors described that transthyretin (TTR) is decreased in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients and thus TTR is a potential CSF biomarker in AD. 4 key findings →

Participants: 55 Evidence: low

CSF biomarkers cutoffs: the importance of coincident neuropathological diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2012-04-22

The effects of applying clinical versus neuropathological diagnosis and the inclusion of cases with coincident neuropathological diagnoses have not been assessed specifically when studying cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker classification cutoffs for patients with neurodegenerative diseases that cause dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

We have shown that chronically administered cannabinoid showed marked beneficial effects concomitant with inflammation reduction and increased Aβ clearance. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

These effects on elevation of brain Aβ exceed those associated with trisomy 21, a known risk for early onset AD pathology, raising the possibility that clinical importance might be attached. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Accumulation of amyloid-β (Aβ) and neurofibrillary tangles in the brain, inflammation and synaptic and neuronal loss are some of the major neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the loss of cognitive functions, reflecting pathological damage to the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) as well as to the hippocampus and the entorhinal cortex. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

These findings suggest that Pls have anti-neuroinflammatory and anti-amyloidogenic effects, thereby indicating the preventive or therapeutic application of Pls against AD. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Expression of LRP1 by neurons in proximity to senile amyloid plaques does not appear to play a major role in modulating the formation of these proximal deposits or in the appearance of the associated neuritic pathology. 3 key findings →

Participants: 13 Evidence: low

Dementia is a common feature in Parkinson's disease (PD) and is considered to be the result of limbic and cortical Lewy bodies and/or Alzheimer changes. 2 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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