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 1,601–1,625 of 3,529 studies · tagged Genetics(page 65 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.
Our findings demonstrate the capability of a fingerstick collection to accurately quantify p ‐tau217 levels longitudinally and genotype ApoE. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·npj Dementia·2026-01-21
Latin America’s diverse genetic landscape provides a unique opportunity to study Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·BMC Medical Imaging·2026-05-11
We identified 8 brain structural features from 192 MRI features that were associated with the risk of MCI progressing to AD, including: left hippocampus, left inferior lateral ventricle, left amygdala, right middle temporal gyrus, left fusiform gyrus, right amygdala, left cortical total volume, and brain parenchyma total volume. 4 key findings →
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is a key immunomodulatory receptor broadly expressed on myeloid cells such as macrophages and microglia. 1 key finding →
Subgroups with slower versus faster neurodegeneration, despite similar pathological accumulation, were compared to assess associations with genetic/lifestyles. 4 key findings →
Along with rapid global population aging, the age-related cognitive disorders such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia have posed a serious threat to public health, health care system, and sustainable economic and societal development of all countries. 1 key finding →
This mass spectrometry-based plasma biomarker test: has strong diagnostic performance; can accurately distinguish brain amyloid positive from amyloid negative individuals; may aid in the diagnostic evaluation process for Alzheimer's disease; and may enhance the efficiency of enrolling participants into Alzheimer's disease drug trials. 1 key finding →
High plasma HDL cholesterol was observationally associated with increased risk of any dementia and Alzheimer's disease, suggesting that HDL cholesterol can be used as an easily accessible plasma biomarker for individual risk assessment. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2011-11-04
Age-related cognitive decline is likely promoted by accumulated brain injury due to chronic conditions of aging, including neurodegenerative and vascular disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Aging·2015-12-01
There is an urgent need to develop molecular biomarkers of brain age in order to advance our understanding of age related neurodegeneration. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Genome medicine·2016-11-01
This transcriptomic network analysis of 19 brain regions provides a comprehensive assessment of the critical molecular pathways associated with AD pathology and offers new insights into molecular mechanisms underlying selective regional vulnerability to AD at different stages of the progression of cognitive compromise and development of the canonical neuropathological lesions of AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2014-07-24
Mutations in the CHCHD10 gene have been recently identified in a large family with a complex phenotype variably associating frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), cerebellar ataxia, myopathy, and hearing impairment. 1 key finding →
Plasma p-tau217 was 57% higher in subjects with at least one APOE ε4 allele, increased with age, was higher in males, and negatively correlated with brain volume measures by magnetic resonance imaging. 4 key findings →
Pericytes are critical for maintaining blood-brain barrier (BBB) integrity and have emerged as key contributors to Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis. 5 key findings →
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.