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 651–675 of 3,529 studies · tagged Genetics(page 27 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.
Disclosure (N = 194) and non-disclosure (N = 180) groups did not differ on IGT-AD (mean disclosure-non-disclosure difference [MD] at 6 weeks: -1.5, p = 0.14; 9 months: -1.2, p = 0.35; 15 months: -2.0, p = 0.07), IES-R (MD at 6 weeks: 0.00, p = 0.98; 9 months: 0.01, p = 0.84; 15 months: 0.03, p = 0.64), or change in secondary outcomes. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Physiological Reviews·2001-04-01
Rapid progress in deciphering the biological mechanism of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has arisen from the application of molecular and cell biology to this complex disorder of the limbic and association cortices. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Medicine·2020-01-01
The AD set included 23,092 cases and 30,920 controls, the ALS set included 7391 cases and 12,442 controls, and the PD set included 8498 patients and 9161 controls. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2014-02-18
Amyloid beta (Aβ) peptides are the major components of senile plaques, one of the main pathological hallmarks of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Research evidence indicating common metabolic mechanisms through which type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) increases risk of late-onset Alzheimer's dementia (LOAD) has accumulated over recent decades. 2 key findings →
Apolipoprotein E (apoE) is a polymorphic gene involved in lipid metabolism with three common variant alleles (epsilon2, epsilon3, and epsilon4). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Nature Communications·2026-02-02
The APOE-ε4/ε4 genotype is the strongest genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer's disease, though the relative risk is diminished in individuals with African ancestry. 2 key findings →
Amyloid PET imaging has been crucial for detecting the accumulation of amyloid beta (Aβ) deposits in the brain and to study Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Nature·1994-11-01
The protease inhibitor alpha 1-antichymotrypsin and the lipid transport protein apolipoprotein E (apoE) are intimately associated with the 42-amino-acid beta-peptide (A beta) in the filamentous amyloid deposits of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neuron·2010-10-01
Three decades of genetic research in Alzheimer disease (AD) have substantially broadened our understanding of the pathogenetic mechanisms leading to neurodegeneration and dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2010-01-01
Our findings suggest that APOE epsilon4-mediated risk for Alzheimer disease is associated with widespread decline in rCBF over time that precedes the onset of dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2016-06-01
Eight single-nucleotide polymorphisms (false discovery rate P Conclusions and relevance Our findings demonstrate genetic overlap between AD and immune-mediated diseases and suggest that immune system processes influence AD pathogenesis and progression. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2010-11-08
Our genome-wide search of Caribbean Hispanic individuals identified several novel genetic variants associated with LOAD and replicated these associations in a white cohort. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2013-09-01
These findings enhance understanding of AD risk factors by relating validated susceptibility alleles to increased neuritic plaque pathology and implicate common genetic variation at the APP locus in the earliest, presymptomatic stages of AD. 4 key findings →
We systematically compared structural imaging patterns of advanced brain aging (ABA) in the general-population, herein defined as significant deviation from typical BA to those found in Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 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.