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 290 studies in Biomarkers published 2025 (page 1 of 12) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 290 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.

Blarcamesine, demonstrating a safety profile with no associated neuroimaging adverse events, significantly slowed clinical progression by 36.3% at 48 weeks with blarcamesine group as well as the individual 30 mg (by 34.6%) and 50 mg (by 38.5%) blarcamesine groups vs. placebo on the prespecified primary cognitive endpoint ADAS-Cog13. 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 338 Evidence: high

Phosphorylated tau (p-tau) species (153, 181, 217, 231) increased early in preclinical AD but were reduced with gantenerumab-mediated Aβ plaque reduction. 5 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 50 Evidence: high

Plasma p-tau217 and tau positron emission tomography (PET) are strong prognostic biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but their relative performance in predicting future cognitive decline among cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals is unclear. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,474 Evidence: high

Plasma amyloid-β(Aβ)42/40 ratio, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light (NfL), and phosphorylated tau181(p-tau181) are promising biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related pathology. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,270 Evidence: moderate

The cohorts had low pre-test probability (%Aβ positivity = 14.9-24.7) and were predominantly cognitively normal (> 73%). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 441 Evidence: moderate

Plasma NfL and GFAP were associated with vascular brain damage and differed across states (VCI > vascular CU > non-vascular CI > non-vascular CU). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,810 Evidence: moderate

This large review pooled 113 studies (nearly 30,000 people) comparing different forms of blood phosphorylated tau for detecting Alzheimer's pathology. p-tau217 was clearly the best-performing marker, correctly identifying disease pathology about 88% of the time, outperforming other tau variants like p-tau181. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 29,625 Evidence: moderate

Reduction of amyloid via amyloid-targeting therapies may result in clinical benefit. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,582 Evidence: high

Plasma p-tau 217 and the NfL/p-tau 217 ratio are promising non-invasive biomarkers for differentiating AD from FTLD, suggesting their use as a potential alternative to traditional diagnostic methods. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 374 Evidence: moderate

Plasma pTau217 is effective for predicting A/T biomarker profile and cognitive decline, though further study is needed to better explain its association with Aβ and tau PET staging. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,919 Evidence: moderate

Regardless of the laboratory technique, blood p-tau181 reliably differentiates A+ and A- subjects. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

In TRIAD, ALZpath p-tau217 (β = 0.45, p = 0.02) and p-tau217+Janssen (β = 0.67, p = 0.002), and in ADNI p-tau217 (β = 0.90, p = 0.002) increased faster in A+E4+. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,039 Evidence: moderate

Plasma Phosphorylated Tau 217 to Identify Preclinical Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-11-01

Participants had a mean (SD) age of 66.9 (9.9) years; 971 (33.3%) were Aβ positive by either CSF or PET, 1667 (57.2%) were women, and 1108 (38.1%) carried at least 1 APOE ε4 allele. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,916 Evidence: high

These findings suggest that the plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 may be useful in identifying individuals with very low levels of amyloid pathology, whereas p-tau, GFAP, and NfL may be useful in staging disease progression. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 784 Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau217 was the highest-performing biomarker for identifying biologically defined Alzheimer's disease, with pooled sensitivity of 88·1% (95% CI 86·7-89·5, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity of 88·7% (87·4-89·9, moderate certainty of evidence), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 91·1% (88·9-92·4, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio of 50·7 (40·6-63·4). p-tau181 pooled sensitivity was 80·5% (78·4-82·4, low certainty of evidence), specificity was 76·4% (74·1-78·6, low certainty of evidence), AUROC was 81·5% (80·2-82·9, low certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 13·4 (11·4-16·7). p-tau205 pooled sensitivity was 76·6% (70·7-81·6, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 86·0% (78·6-91·2, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 85·1% (80·7-89·6, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 20·2 (10·5-38·7). p-tau212 pooled sensitivity was 84·5% (75·5-90·6, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 87·3% (79·5-92·5, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 90·3% (86·6-94·1, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 41·2 (22·0-77·3). p-tau231 pooled sensitivity was 75·2% (71·3-78·8, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 75·3% (71·2-78·9, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 80·2 (77·6-82·7, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 9·3 (7·0-12·2). 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

These results confirm that blood-based pTau217 is a reliable marker of amyloid pathology with significant implications for clinical practice in the AD continuum. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The distribution of tau pathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD) shows remarkable inter-individual heterogeneity, including hemispheric asymmetry. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 102 Evidence: moderate

These findings suggest that C 2 N Diagnostics' MS-based plasma biomarkers can detect brain amyloid and tau with high accuracy prior to dementia and could aid in identifying candidates for clinical trials or therapeutic intervention. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 304 Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau217/Aβ42 has high performance in detecting cerebral AD pathologies, thus offering a promising tool for clinical diagnosis and community screening of AD. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 512 Evidence: moderate

The Core 1 biomarker PGSs predicted AD pathology and associated cognitive performance better than the AD PGSs in both populations. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 515 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 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