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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 2,826–2,850 of 3,557 studies · tagged Genetics(page 114 of 143)· 27,780 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; 13,259 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.
This study examines cortical organoids generated from a panel of isogenic trisomic and disomic iPSC lines (subclones) as a model of early fetal brain development in Down syndrome (DS). 3 key findings →
The presenilin (PS) proteins are components of the gamma-secretase activity, which is central in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Nasu-Hakola disease or polycystic lipomembranous osteodysplasia with sclerosing leukoencephalopathy (PLOSL) is a rare recessively inherited disease that is associated with early dementia and bone cysts with fractures. 4 key findings →
Recent genome-wide association studies revealed that Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) was associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Inflammation·2018-06-01
As a recently identified susceptibility gene for Alzheimer's disease (AD), triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) encodes an immune receptor that is uniquely expressed on microglia, functioning as a modulator of microglial functions including phagocytosis and inflammatory response. 4 key findings →
The control of viral infections in the brain involves the activation of microglial cells, the macrophages of the brain that are constantly surveying the central nervous system, and the production of amyloid-beta (Aβ) as an anti-microbial molecule. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Human pathology·2017-11-02
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is a member of the immunoglobulin superfamily and associates with TYRO protein tyrosine kinase-binding protein at the cell membrane to form a receptor signaling complex. 4 key findings →
Nasu-Hakola disease (NHD) is a rare autosomal recessive disorder, characterized by a combination of progressive presenile dementia and formation of multifocal bone cysts, caused by genetic mutations of DAP12 and TREM2, which constitute a receptor/adapter signaling complex expressed on osteoclasts, dendritic cells, macrophages, and microglia. 4 key findings →
Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) polymorphism has been appreciated as a valuable predictor of Alzheimer disease (AD), and the associated ε4 allele has been recognized as an indicator of susceptibility to this disease. 4 key findings →
Environmental factors like neighborhood disadvantage are also associated with cognitive decline, however, few studies have integrated this with APOE research. 5 key findings →
In analyses of APOE ε4 carriers, dosage, and genetic risk score, APOE ε4 was associated with lower odds of fluctuating cognition and parkinsonism and higher odds of visual hallucinations. 5 key findings →
Peruvian GWAS identified Amerindian ancestry specific exonic AD susceptibility variant p.H157Y. This variant has been previously reported as AD marker in Han Chinese populations with extreme effect size, but its rarity and contradictory findings in other groups suggest a potential ancestry‐specific effect. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·npj Digital Medicine·2026-08-03
Early and accurate prognosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) remains limited by current biomarkers, which are often invasive, require expensive equipment, or fail to predict individual trajectories of cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Genes·2025-01-13
Women carrying pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in moderate- or high-penetrance genes have an increased risk of developing breast cancer. 2 key findings →
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) encompasses a broad, clinically and neuropathologically diverse group of neurodegenerative disorders associated with changes in personality, behaviour, and/or language due to the progressive degeneration of the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain. 3 key findings →
10 of the 3,549 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%),
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.