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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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.
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 876–900 of 1,593 studies · free to read · tagged Genetics(page 36 of 64)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.
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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2013-11-13
The relationship between PP and CSF biomarkers is age-dependent and observed only in participants in the fifth and sixth decades of life. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-01-22
The APOE ε4 allele segregated dose-dependently and selectively with CA1-SRLM thinning and worse episodic memory performance in a pool of older subjects across a cognitive spectrum. 4 key findings →
Vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) are a common cause of cognitive decline, yet limited therapies exist. 2 key findings →
Among 104 537 individuals, the absolute 10-year risk of Alzheimer disease in 3017 women and men who were carriers of the APOE ɛ44 genotype was, respectively, 7% and 6% at age 60-69 years, 16% and 12% at age 70-79 years, and 24% and 19% at age 80 years and older. 1 key finding →
We examined how an Alzheimer disease (AD) family history assessment as compared to a risk assessment incorporating the absence of a disease-associated susceptibility allele affected risk perception among adult children with a family history of AD. 3 key findings →
Frontotemporal dementia, a heterogeneous neurodegenerative disorder, is a common cause of young onset dementia (i.e. dementia developing in midlife or earlier). 5 key findings →
The purpose of the study was to provide characterization of Mexican Americans who meet criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →
Tau protein is the major component of the intraneuronal filamentous inclusions that constitute defining neuropathological characteristics of Alzheimer's disease and other tauopathies. 1 key finding →
Dominantly inherited mutations in the genes encoding presenilins (PS) and the amyloid precursor protein (APP) are the major causes of familial Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neuron·2006-10-01
Classic Parkinson's disease (PD) is characterized by fibrillar alpha-synuclein inclusions known as Lewy bodies in the substantia nigra, which are associated with nigrostriatal degeneration. 1 key finding →
More than 40 diseases, most of which primarily affect the nervous system, are caused by expansions of simple sequence repeats dispersed throughout the human genome. 1 key finding →
A clinically and pathologically heterogeneous type of frontotemporal lobar degeneration has abnormal tau pathology in neurons and glia (FTLD-tau). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·The EMBO journal·2008-01-01
The etiologies of neurodegenerative diseases may be diverse; however, a common pathological denominator is the formation of aberrant protein conformers and the occurrence of pathognomonic proteinaceous deposits. 1 key finding →
The Alzheimer A beta amyloid peptide (A beta) is the principal proteinaceous component of amyloid associated with Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
The amyloid precursor protein (APP) has been associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) because APP is processed into the beta-peptide that accumulates in amyloid plaques, and APP gene mutations can cause early onset AD. 4 key findings →
To analyze the relationship between the deposition of amyloid beta peptides (Abeta) and neuronal loss in transgenic models of Alzheimer's disease (AD), we examined the frontal neocortex (Fc) and CA1 portion of hippocampus (CA1) in PSAPP mice doubly expressing AD-associated mutant presenilin 1 (PS1) and Swedish-type mutant beta amyloid precursor protein (APPsw) by morphometry of Abeta burden and neuronal counts. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Science signaling·2010-05-18
The activation and fusion of macrophages and of osteoclasts require the adaptor molecule DNAX-activating protein of 12 kD (DAP12), which contains immunoreceptor tyrosine-based activation motifs (ITAMs). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Cell reports·2015-01-22
We provide microarray data comparing genome-wide differential expression and pathology throughout life in four lines of "amyloid" transgenic mice (mutant human APP, PSEN1, or APP/PSEN1) and "TAU" transgenic mice (mutant human MAPT gene). 4 key findings →
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.
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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.