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 2,551–2,575 of 3,529 studies · tagged Genetics(page 103 of 142)· 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 41 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2021-10-29
The genetic locus containing the WWOX and MAF genes was implicated as a clinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk locus in two recent large meta-analytic genome wide association studies (GWAS). 4 key findings →
Eleven loci with GWAS hits for one disorder were also associated with one or both of the other disorders: one with all three disorders (the MAPT/KANSL1 locus), five with ADRD and PD (near LCORL, CLU, SETD1A/KAT8, WWOX, and GRN), three with ADRD and ALS (near GPX3, HS3ST5/HDAC2/MARCKS, and TSPOAP1), and two with PD and ALS (near GAK/TMEM175 and NEK1). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·PloS one·2023-12-11
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are instrumental in genetics, offering insights into an individual level genetic risk to a range of diseases based on accumulated genetic variations. 1 key finding →
The high prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) among the elderly population and its lack of effective treatments make this disease a critical threat to human health. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2022-05-19
In just over a decade, advances in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have offered an approach to stratify individuals based on genetic risk for disease. 4 key findings →
Microglia, the macrophages of the brain, are vital for brain homeostasis and have been implicated in a broad range of brain disorders. 5 key findings →
Monogenic causes of complex diseases were more prevalent among individuals with a parental disease history than in the rest of the population. 4 key findings →
The success of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) completed in the last 15 years has reinforced a key fact: polygenic architecture makes a substantial contribution to variation of susceptibility to complex disease, including Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Mitochondrion·2021-02-19
Novel therapeutic strategies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are of the greatest priority given the consistent failure of recent clinical trials focused on Aβ or pTau. 1 key finding →
A multi-stage variable selection method is introduced for detecting association signals in structured brain-wide and genome-wide association studies (brain-GWAS). 3 key findings →
Both social and genetic factors contribute to cognitive impairment and decline, yet genetic factors identified through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) explain only a small portion of trait variability. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Open biology·2022-01-26
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by the presence of amyloid beta (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs), neuronal and synaptic loss and inflammation of the central nervous system (CNS). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Genes·2021-03-20
Late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), the most common cause of dementia, and a huge global health challenge, is a neurodegenerative disease of uncertain aetiology. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Genes·2021-06-05
Late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) has a significant genetic and immunological component, but the molecular mechanisms through which genetic and immunity-related risk factors and their interplay contribute to AD pathogenesis are unclear. 3 key findings →
Black/African American (AA) individuals have a higher risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) than White non-Hispanic persons of European ancestry (EUR) for reasons that may include economic disparities, cardiovascular health, quality of education, and biases in the methods used to diagnose AD. 1 key finding →
10 of the 3,521 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 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.