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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,476–1,500 of 1,593 studies · free to read · tagged Genetics(page 60 of 64)· 28,180 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)
From OpenAlex; 13,658 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 35 out of 100.·Neuropathology·2025-03-05
Mutations in the Integral membrane protein 2B (ITM2B) gene are linked to the development of familial British and Danish dementias, two relatively early-onset dementia disorders known also to be associated with Tau neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs). 2 key findings →
Early-onset cataract and Alzheimer's disease occur with high frequency in Down syndrome (trisomy 21), the most common chromosome duplication in human live births. 2 key findings →
The human ETS2 gene, a member of the ETS gene family, with sequence homology with the retroviral ets sequence of the avian erythroblastosis retrovirus E26 is located on chromosome 21. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100.·Medicine·2025-10-17
This study aimed to investigate the bidirectional causal relationship between celiac disease (CD) and the risk of Alzheimer disease (AD) or frontotemporal dementia (FTD) using Mendelian randomization (MR), in order to clarify prior inconsistent findings. 3 key findings →
Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) represents a heterogeneous group of neurodegenerative disorders with overlapping clinical, pathological, and genetic characteristics. 1 key finding →
Neuroinflammation plays a key role in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the actions of microglial mediators may vary across stages of Aβ pathology. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Stem cell reports·2021-12-16
The apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) variant is the strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), while the APOE2 allele is protective. 1 key finding →
Down syndrome (DS) is an aneuploidy syndrome that is caused by trisomy for human chromosome 21 resulting in a characteristic cognitive and behavioral phenotype, which includes executive functioning and adaptive behavior difficulties possibly due to prefrontal cortex (PFC) deficits. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Bioengineered bugs·2012-01-01
Human trisomy 21 is the most frequent live-born human aneuploidy and causes a constellation of disease phenotypes classified as Down syndrome, which include heart defects, myeloproliferative disorder, cognitive disabilities and Alzheimer-type neurodegeneration. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Neurology Genetics·2025-07-21
The APOE (apolipoprotein E) ε4 allele is the strongest known genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD) and for brain amyloidosis, an early marker of disease pathophysiology. 4 key findings →
These findings suggest that sexual differentiation in early life has modest effects on adult development of AD in females, a relationship that appeared stronger in the context of APOE4 . 4 key findings →
Our findings highlight the potential of diverse genomic backgrounds to uncover protective genetic factors, such as the African-specific protective PSG2 locus, found to confer a protective effect among APOE4 carriers. 1 key finding →
In the colocalization of cis-eQTL and GWAS signals for Hispanics, we observed a high posterior probability (posterior prob = 0.9947) for the upstream gene variant rs755980338 on chromosome 11, which locally regulates EHD1 gene (GWAS p-value = 0.009, cis-eQTL p-value = 0.0041). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·JMIR Aging·2025-04-24
Fifty-four participants (~8% response rate) from the MindCrowd web-based cohort (mean age of 62.39 years; 39 females; and 23 APOE ε4 carriers) completed 75 trials of Super G. Results show that Super G performance was significantly associated with each of the targeted risk factors. 5 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 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.