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 26–50 of 205 studies with an author at Harvard University (US) · tagged Genetics (page 2 of 9) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 205 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.

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.

Common genetic variance in apolipoprotein E (APOE), β-glucocerebrosidase (GBA), microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT), and α-synuclein (SNCA) has been linked to cognitive decline in Parkinson's disease (PD), although studies have yielded mixed results. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 281 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease is one of the most heritable diseases in elderly people and the most common type of dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 926 Evidence: moderate

We identified 4 novel genetic loci that implicate inflammatory and glial proliferative pathways in the development of WMH in addition to previously proposed ischemic mechanisms. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 17 Evidence: high

PurposeTelephone disclosure of genetic test results can improve access to services. 4 key findings →

Participants: 257 Evidence: high

APOE4 homozygozity represents a distinct genetic form of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Nature medicine 2024-05-06

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of APOE4 homozygosity on Alzheimer's disease (AD) by examining its clinical, pathological and biomarker changes to see whether APOE4 homozygotes constitute a distinct, genetically determined form of AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,297 Evidence: low

These findings provide evidence for a relationship between all types of alcohol use and increased dementia risk. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 559,559 Evidence: moderate

Association of Factors With Elevated Amyloid Burden in Clinically Normal Older Individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2020-06-01

The large number of participants screened with amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and standardized assessments provides an unprecedented opportunity to evaluate factors associated with elevated brain amyloid. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,486 Evidence: low

Brain iron elevation is implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis, but the impact of iron on disease outcomes has not been previously explored in a longitudinal study. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

A variant within a DNase hypersensitive site 5' of TREM2, rs9357347-C, associates with reduced AD risk and increased TREML1 and TREM2 levels (uncorrected P = 6.3 × 10 -3 and 4.6 × 10 -2 , respectively). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,006 Evidence: high

We sent invitations to 91,433 households; 5542 (6.1%) responded, 2120 completed the Baseline Survey (78.5% online; 21.5% via computer-assisted telephone interview), and 2087 were deemed eligible, yielding a response rate of 2.3%. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 374 Evidence: high

Etiology of White Matter Hyperintensities in Autosomal Dominant and Sporadic Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2023-12-01

Data from 3960 MRI sessions among 1141 participants were included: 252 pathogenic variant carriers from DIAN (mean [SD] age, 38.4 [11.2] years; 137 [54%] female), 571 older adults from ADNI (mean [SD] age, 72.8 [7.3] years; 274 [48%] female), and 318 older adults from HABS (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [7.6] years; 194 [61%] female). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,141 Evidence: moderate

Educational Attainment and Dementia: Mediation by Mid-Life Vascular Risk Factors

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Annals of Neurology 2023-04-27

A substantial proportion of the relationship between education and dementia was mediated through mid-life vascular risk factors. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 13,368 Evidence: moderate

Early tau deposition was elevated in women compared with men in individuals on the Alzheimer disease trajectory. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 89 Evidence: low

At 48 months, group differences between clinical progressors and non-progressors were significant for self (2.13, SE=0.45, P Conclusions and relevance Demonstrating long-term clinical benefit will be critical for the success of recently launched secondary prevention trials. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 468 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive decline is a debilitating manifestation of disease progression in Parkinson's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,200 Evidence: moderate

The preclinical Alzheimer cognitive composite: measuring amyloid-related decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2014-08-01

In ADNI, Aβ-positive participants showed more decline than did Aβ-negative participants with regard to the ADCS-PACC score at 24 months (mean [SE] difference, -1.239 [0.522] [95% CI, -2.263 to -0.215]; P = .02). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Estimates of AD disease duration become more accurate if age, sex, setting, APOE, and cerebrospinal fluid tau are taken into account. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,268 Evidence: low

Hearing Loss, Brain Structure, Cognition, and Dementia Risk in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-11-05

Sample 1 included 1656 participants (mean [range] age, 58.1 [29.7-85.6] years; 903 female [54.5%]), and sample 2 included 935 participants (mean [range] age, 67.6 [60.0-85.6] years; 518 female [55.4%]). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,656 Evidence: moderate

The rare TREM2 R47H variant exerts only a modest effect on Alzheimer disease risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2014-09-03

Meta-analysis of the 2 family-based and the 5 case-control cohorts yielded a p value of 0.0029, while the overall summary estimate (using case-control data only) resulted in an odds ratio of 1.67 (95% confidence interval 0.95-2.92) for the association between the TREM2 R47H and increased AD risk. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

↑ 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.

1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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