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 301–325 of 3,529 studies · tagged Genetics(page 13 of 142)· 27,380 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; 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 65 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2023-05-01
Cross-sectional evidence implicates high prevalent frailty in patients with Parkinson disease (PD), whereas the longitudinal association remains unknown. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·PLoS Genetics·2025-03-17
The genetic component of early-onset Alzheimer disease (EOAD), accounting for ~10% of all Alzheimer's disease (AD) cases, is largely unexplained. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub 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 →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2021-08-01
Previous studies have suggested that the APOE ɛ4 allele plays a role in the risk and age at onset of dementia in DS; however, data on in vivo biomarkers remain scarce. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Neurology·2018-08-03
These results support the hypothesis that the appearance of WMH follows age and disease-dependent regional distribution patterns, potentially influenced by differential underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, and possibly with a differential link to vascular and neurodegenerative changes. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·PLoS medicine·2017-03-28
Secondary analysis suggested that this effect may be driven primarily by individuals who are negative for the established AD genetic risk factor, apolipoprotein E (APOE) ɛ4. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2014-04-14
Among the evaluated parameters, the only significant predictor of conversion to AD was non-Cp copper (hazard ratio = 1.23, 95% confidence interval = 1.03-1.47, p = 0.022); for each additional micromole per liter unit (μmol/l) of non-Cp copper, the hazard increased by ~20%. 2 key findings →
In the largest twin study to date, we confirmed that heritability for AD is high and that the same genetic factors are influential for both men and women. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Nature genetics·2009-09-06
We conducted a genome-wide association study among 2,323 individuals with sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and 9,013 control subjects and evaluated all SNPs with P < 1.0 x 10(-4) in a second, independent cohort of 2,532 affected individuals and 5,940 controls. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Nature·1998-06-01
Thirteen families have been described with an autosomal dominantly inherited dementia named frontotemporal dementia and parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 (FTDP-17), historically termed Pick's disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Nature·2006-07-16
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with ubiquitin-immunoreactive neuronal inclusions (both cytoplasmic and nuclear) of unknown nature has been linked to a chromosome 17q21 region (FTDU-17) containing MAPT (microtubule-associated protein tau). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Nature·2022-02-23
A hallmark pathological feature of the neurodegenerative diseases amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is the depletion of RNA-binding protein TDP-43 from the nucleus of neurons in the brain and spinal cord 1 . 2 key findings →
9 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 9. The same 9 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.