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 1,726–1,750 of 3,529 studies · tagged Genetics(page 70 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.
As of a data cutoff of December 3, 2024, 243 participants were screened and 197 randomized in DIAN-TU-001 Tau NexGen trial (Cohort 1: 97; Cohort 2: 100). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·PLoS Medicine·2026-03-02
A case-control GWAS was performed in the UK Biobank to identify genetic variants associated with postoperative delirium, adjusted for age, sex, genetic chip, and the first 10 principal components. 5 key findings →
Bibliometric analysis is crucial in identifying research gaps and trends and guiding future studies to address unmet needs in understanding and modeling human physiology and pathology. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Brain Research·1991-02-01
Researchers conducted immunohistochemical studies on lipid changes in Alzheimer's disease brains using an antibody to apolipoprotein E. They unexpectedly discovered that apo E immunoreactivity was associated with amyloid in senile plaques, cerebral vessels, and neurofibrillary tangles, as well as in kuru plaques in Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1998-08-01
Brain imaging techniques have the potential to characterize neurobiological changes that precede the onset of cognitive impairment in persons at risk for Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Amyloid imaging studies of presymptomatic familial Alzheimer's disease have revealed the striatum and thalamus to be the earliest sites of amyloid deposition. 3 key findings →
Neuroplasticity may have a core role in the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder (MDD), a concept supported by experimental studies that found that excessive cortisol secretion and/or excessive production of inflammatory cytokines impairs neuronal plasticity and neurogenesis in the hippocampus. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2007-03-13
The s allele variant of the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTT) has recently been observed to moderate the relationship of stress to depression and anxiety. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature genetics·2021-01-28
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified many risk loci for Alzheimer's disease (AD) 1,2 , but how these loci confer AD risk is unclear. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature communications·2021-03-12
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 40 loci associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the causal variants, regulatory elements, genes and pathways remain largely unknown, impeding a mechanistic understanding of AD pathogenesis. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2010-10-01
Within this region, we defined a 42-SNP haplotype that was associated with significantly increased risk of ALS (p=7·47×10(-33) when people with familial ALS were compared with controls, odds ratio 21·0, 95% CI 11·2-39·1) and which overlapped with an association locus recently reported for frontotemporal dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature communications·2016-04-15
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are overlapping, fatal neurodegenerative disorders in which the molecular and pathogenic basis remains poorly understood. 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.