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 251–275 of 3,529 studies · tagged Genetics(page 11 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 66 out of 100.·Nature genetics·2022-04-04
Characterization of the genetic landscape of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADD) provides a unique opportunity for a better understanding of the associated pathophysiological processes. 2 key findings →
The 52 baseline participants comprised autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease mutation carriers (n = 11; 49.6 ± 10.3 years old) and non-carriers (n = 16; 51.1 ± 14.2 years old; 10 male), and patients with sporadic mild cognitive impairment (n = 17; 61.9 ± 6.4 years old; nine male) and sporadic Alzheimer's disease (n = 8; 63.0 ± 6.5 years old; five male); for confidentiality reasons, the gender of mutation carriers is not revealed. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2016-10-01
GBA mutations (β = 4.65; 95% CI, 1.72-7.58; P = .002), E326K (β = 3.42; 95% CI, 0.66-6.17; P = .02), and GBA variants combined as a single group (β = 4.01; 95% CI, 1.95-6.07; P = 1.5 × 10-4) were associated with a more rapid decline in MDS-UPDRS III score. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·PLoS medicine·2020-08-20
The ε4 allele of apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene and increasing age are two of the most important known risk factors for developing Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·PLoS genetics·2014-03-20
Circulating homocysteine levels (tHcy), a product of the folate one carbon metabolism pathway (FOCM) through the demethylation of methionine, are heritable and are associated with an increased risk of common diseases such as stroke, cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer and dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Nature Aging·2025-11-24
Delirium is an acute change in cognition, common in hospitalized older adults, and associated with high healthcare and human cost; however, delirium's genetic and proteomic background remains poorly understood. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Nature Genetics·2011-04-03
The authors sought to identify new susceptibility loci for Alzheimer's disease through a staged association study and by testing suggestive loci reported by the Alzheimer's Disease Genetic Consortium in a companion paper. 2 key findings →
We examined the impact of physical activity (PA) on longitudinal change in hippocampal volume in cognitively intact older adults at varying genetic risk for the sporadic form of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2006-11-01
Diabetes mellitus did not increase the risk of incident AD in the Framingham cohort overall; however, DM may be a risk factor for AD in the absence of other known major AD risk factors. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2011-03-09
We found that common variation at the CR1 locus has a broad impact on cognition and that this effect is largely mediated by an individual's amyloid plaque burden. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Frontiers in dementia·2024-01-15
APOE -ε4 allele[s] is a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities (ARIA) in anti-amyloid beta therapy, and is also associated with cerebrovascular risk factors such as hyperlipidemia or atherosclerosis. 4 key findings →
Most people's cognitive abilities decline with age, with significant and partly genetically driven, individual differences in rate of change. 3 key findings →
Familial Alzheimer's disease (FAD), despite representing a rare condition, is attracting a growing interest in the scientific community. 1 key finding →
ARIA-E incidence was 2.0% in non-carriers and 6.2% in εε4/εε4 homozygotes (εε4/εε4-versus-non-carrier OR 3.25, versus 8.49 in Clarity AD and 8.32 in Japan post-marketing surveillance). 4 key findings →
ϵ4 prevalence in Black (46%) and White participants (46%) was almost double that of Latino participants (24%). ϵ4 was associated with poorer baseline episodic memory only in White participants (p = .001), but had a moderately strong association with episodic memory change across all racial/ethnic groups (Blacks= -.061 SD/year, Latinos = -.055,Whites= -.055). ϵ4 association with semantic memory change was strongest in White participants (-.071), intermediate in Latino participants (-.041), and weakest in Black participants (-.022). 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.
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.