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 126–150 of 849 studies in Tau biomarkers (page 6 of 34) · 30,980 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 “Tau biomarkers” covers

Tau biomarkers — Blood, spinal fluid and scan measures of tau protein, and how they track the disease.

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.

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers have been used to increase the evidence of underlying Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Lexical and Acoustic Speech Features Relating to Alzheimer Disease Pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 2022-07-25

We compared digital speech and language features of patients with amnestic Alzheimer disease (aAD) or logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) in a biologically confirmed cohort and related these features to neuropsychiatric test scores and CSF analytes. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 44 Evidence: moderate

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tau and beta-amyloid levels in chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a disease which can be clinically indistinguishable from Alzheimer's disease (AD), are largely unknown. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 192 Evidence: low

Depression is a known risk factor for dementia and MCI, but its associations with AT(N) biomarkers remain inconsistent and may differ by cognitive status. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,929 Evidence: moderate

Blood-Based Analysis of Different Tau Variants in Patients With Multiple Traumatic Injuries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA network open 2026-02-02

With blood-based phosphorylated tau biomarkers soon to be used for diagnosis of Alzheimer disease, analyzing tau levels in other conditions could enhance biomarker interpretability. 4 key findings →

Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate

Concentration of CSF pT217/T217 had low predictive error (average error: 13%), but also a low predictive range (ceiling 63 Centiloids). 5 key findings →

Participants: 346 Evidence: low

AUC-based performance was similarly good for the pTau181/Aβ42 ratio (AUC=0.841; 95% CI: 0.759-0.923), pTau181/Aβ40 ratio (AUC=0.837; 95% CI: 0.754-0.919), Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio (AUC=0.829; 95% CI: 0.746-0.912), tTau/Aβ42 ratio (AUC=0.822; 95% CI: 0.736-0.908), pTau181/Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio (AUC=0.817; 95% CI: 0.734-0.901), and Aβ42 (AUC=0.812; 95% CI: 0.722-0.902). 5 key findings →

Participants: 130 Evidence: low

The CSF α-synuclein levels correlated with AD-specific biomarkers, CSF total tau and phosphorylated tau levels, in 651 Chinese Han participants (training set). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was associated with lower amyloid beta (Aβ)42/tau ratio (p < 0.0001) and Aβ42 (p = 0.002) and higher tau (p < 0.0001) and p-tau (p = 0.0002). 5 key findings →

Participants: 973 Evidence: low

The best discriminators between probable/definite bvFTD and PSY were the levels of CSF NfL (area under the curve [AUC] 0.93, P < .001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.00), p-tau/tau ratio (AUC 0.87, P < .001, 95% CI 0.77-0.97), and YKL40 (AUC 0.82, P = .001, 95% CI 0.68-0.97). 5 key findings →

Participants: 22 Evidence: low

Plasma and CSF serpins in Alzheimer disease and dementia with Lewy bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2007-08-29

Serine protease inhibitors (serpins), the acute phase reactants and regulators of the proteolytic processing of proteins, have been recognized as potential contributors to the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 258 Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease pathology and the cerebrospinal fluid proteome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2018-07-18

Altered proteome profiles have been reported in both postmortem brain tissues and body fluids of subjects with Alzheimer disease (AD), but their broad relationships with AD pathology, amyloid pathology, and tau-related neurodegeneration have not yet been fully explored. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 48 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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    Where this research is being discussed: events