alzhub.org
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.

Research

28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 29 studies with an author at Neuroscience Research Australia (AU) · tagged Genetics (page 1 of 2) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 29 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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 14,058 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.

Frontotemporal dementia and its subtypes: a genome-wide association study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2014-07-01

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a complex disorder characterised by a broad range of clinical manifestations, differential pathological signatures, and genetic variability. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,526 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Determinants of cognitive performance and decline in 20 diverse ethno-regional groups: A COSMIC collaboration cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. PLoS medicine 2019-07-23

With no effective treatments for cognitive decline or dementia, improving the evidence base for modifiable risk factors is a research priority. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 48,522 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Spatial patterns of neuroimaging biomarker change in individuals from families with autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease: a longitudinal study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2018-02-01

We found a sequence to pathological changes, with rates of Aβ deposition in mutation carriers being significantly different from those in non-carriers first (across regions that showed a significant difference, at a mean of 18·9 years [SD 3·3] before expected onset), followed by hypometabolism (14·1 years [5·1] before expected onset), and lastly structural decline (4·7 years [4·2] before expected onset). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 346 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Deciphering distinct genetic risk factors for FTLD-TDP pathological subtypes via whole-genome sequencing

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Nature Communications 2025-04-25

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration with neuronal inclusions of the TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (FTLD-TDP) is a fatal neurodegenerative disorder with only a limited number of risk loci identified. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 985 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Common Genetic Variation Indicates Separate Causes for Periventricular and Deep White Matter Hyperintensities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Stroke 2020-06-10

Periventricular white matter hyperintensities (WMH; PVWMH) and deep WMH (DWMH) are regional classifications of WMH and reflect proposed differences in cause. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 26,654 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Cerebral small vessel disease genomics and its implications across the lifespan

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Nature communications 2020-12-08

White matter hyperintensities (WMH) are the most common brain-imaging feature of cerebral small vessel disease (SVD), hypertension being the main known risk factor. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Comparative neurofilament light chain trajectories in CSF and plasma in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Nature communications 2024-11-18

Disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are likely to be most beneficial when initiated in the presymptomatic phase. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 567 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

γ-Secretase activity, clinical features, and biomarkers of autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease: cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network observational study (DIAN-OBS)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2024-07-26

A summary measure of γ-secretase activity (γ-secretase composite [GSC]) was calculated for each variant and compared with clinical history-derived AAO using correlation analyses. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Comparison of CSF biomarkers in Down syndrome and autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2021-08-01

Due to trisomy of chromosome 21 and the resultant extra copy of the amyloid precursor protein gene, nearly all adults with Down syndrome develop Alzheimer's disease pathology by the age of 40 years and are at high risk for dementia given their increased life expectancy compared with adults with Down syndrome in the past. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 41 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Neuropathologic diagnostic and nosologic criteria for frontotemporal lobar degeneration: consensus of the Consortium for Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2007-06-20

Molecular genetic studies of familial cases of FTLD-U have shown that mutations in the progranulin (PGRN) gene are a major genetic cause of FTLD-U. Thus, familial TDP-43 proteinopathy is associated with defects in multiple genes, and molecular genetics is required in these cases to correctly identify the causative gene defect. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The pattern of atrophy in familial Alzheimer disease: volumetric MRI results from the DIAN study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurology 2013-09-18

Atrophy in FAD is observed early, both in areas commonly associated with sporadic Alzheimer disease and also in the putamen and thalamus, 2 regions associated with early amyloid deposition in FAD mutation carriers. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 192 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Autosomal dominant and sporadic late onset Alzheimer's disease share a common in vivo pathophysiology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2022-10-01

The extent to which the pathophysiology of autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease corresponds to the pathophysiology of 'sporadic' late onset Alzheimer's disease is unknown, thus limiting the extrapolation of study findings and clinical trial results in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease to late onset Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 559 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Controversies and priorities in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2013-03-01

Two decades after the discovery that 20% of familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) cases were linked to mutations in the superoxide dismutase-1 (SOD1) gene, a substantial proportion of the remainder of cases of familial ALS have now been traced to an expansion of the intronic hexanucleotide repeat sequence in C9orf72. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The Medical Genome Reference Bank contains whole genome and phenotype data of 2570 healthy elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Nature communications 2020-01-23

Population health research is increasingly focused on the genetic determinants of healthy ageing, but there is no public resource of whole genome sequences and phenotype data from healthy elderly individuals. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Proteomics of brain, CSF, and plasma identifies molecular signatures for distinguishing sporadic and genetic Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Science translational medicine 2023-07-05

Proteomic studies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are instrumental in identifying AD pathways but often focus on single tissues and sporadic AD cases. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Location of pathogenic variants in PSEN1 impacts progression of cognitive, clinical, and neurodegenerative measures in autosomal-dominant Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Aging cell 2023-06-08

Although pathogenic variants in PSEN1 leading to autosomal-dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) are highly penetrant, substantial interindividual variability in the rates of cognitive decline and biomarker change are observed in ADAD. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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