Get help now — free helplines

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 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call 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) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed 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.

Find studies

Showing 51–75 of 236 studies in Genetics · tagged Risk Factors (page 3 of 10) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 236 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Genetics” covers

Genetics — Inherited risk: APOE and the other risk genes, and what they do and don't tell you.

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.

Biobank-wide association scan identifies risk factors for late-onset Alzheimer's disease and endophenotypes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. eLife 2024-05-24

Rich data from large biobanks, coupled with increasingly accessible association statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS), provide great opportunities to dissect the complex relationships among human traits and diseases. 5 key findings →

Participants: 61,212 Evidence: moderate

Cholesterol, APOE genotype, and Alzheimer disease: an epidemiologic study of Nigerian Yoruba

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2006-01-01

There was a significant interaction between cholesterol, APOE-epsilon4, and the risk of Alzheimer disease (AD) in the Yoruba, a population that has lower cholesterol levels and lower incidence rates of AD compared to African Americans. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,075 Evidence: moderate

Although altered lipid metabolism has been extensively implicated in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD) through cell biological, epidemiological, and genetic studies, the molecular mechanisms linking cholesterol and AD pathology are still not well understood and contradictory results have been reported. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 10,578 Evidence: moderate

Disturbing dreams were reported by 24.2% overall and all-cause dementia, and AD incidence was 10.8 and 5.3 per 1000 person-years, respectively. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 10,238 Evidence: moderate

Head injury and the risk of AD in the MIRAGE study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2000-03-01

Comparison of probands with their unaffected spouses yielded odds ratios for AD of 9.9 (95% CI, 6.5 to 15.1) for head injury with loss of consciousness and 3.1 (2.3 to 4.0) for head injury without loss of consciousness. 3 key findings →

Participants: 2,233 Evidence: low

APOE genotype, cholesterol level, lipid-lowering treatment, and dementia: the Three-City Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2005-05-01

This observational study provides further evidence that lipid-lowering agents are associated with decreased risk of dementia, whereas hyperlipidemia is associated with increased odds for non-Alzheimer-disease-type dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 9,294 Evidence: moderate

Impaired insulin secretion increases the risk of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2008-04-09

In this longitudinal study, impaired acute insulin response at midlife was associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer disease (AD) up to 35 years later suggesting a causal link between insulin metabolism and the pathogenesis of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,322 Evidence: moderate

To evaluate reverse causation, we assessed whether a polygenic risk score for AD is associated with HGS. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The established association of APOE*4 carriers with AD was confirmed in this community-based sample of older subjects (odds ratio (OR) = 2.22; p = 9.36E-14) and was stronger in females (OR = 2.72; p = 1.74E-10) than in males (OR = 1.88; p = 2.43E-05). 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

In this review, the evidence that single clinically defined cardiovascular risk factors are significantly associated with incident AD is inconsistent at best. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Association of Klotho-VS Heterozygosity With Risk of Alzheimer Disease in Individuals Who Carry APOE4

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2020-07-01

The genotype KL-VSHET+ is associated with reduced AD risk and Aβ burden in individuals who are aged 60 to 80 years, cognitively normal, and carrying APOE4. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

This preliminary report suggests that CETP V405 valine homozygosity is associated with slower memory decline and lower incident dementia and AD risk. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 523 Evidence: moderate

Plasma levels of apolipoprotein E and risk of dementia in the general population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2015-01-13

Low plasma levels of apoE are associated with increased risk of future Alzheimer disease and all dementia in the general population, independent of ε2/ε3/ε4 APOE genotype. 3 key findings →

Participants: 75,708 Evidence: low

Interaction Between APOE Genotype and Diabetes in Longevity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2021

Diabetes was associated with shorter lifespan in APOE3 carriers (n = 12,415, HR = 1.29, 95%CI = 1.17-1.42, p < 0.001) and APOE2 carriers (n = 2,390, HR = 1.37, 95%CI = 1.10-1.69, p = 0.016), while such associations were weaker and not significant in APOE4 carriers (n = 9,490, HR = 1.11, 95%CI = 0.99-1.24, p = 0.162). 5 key findings →

Participants: 12,415 Evidence: low

Our findings highlight the importance of personalized risk assessments and the development of tailored interventions based on genetic background to prevent dementia more effectively. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 182,473 Evidence: moderate

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

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 tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed    Where this research is being discussed: events