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 126–150 of 236 studies in Genetics · tagged Risk Factors (page 6 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.

Among 104 537 individuals, the absolute 10-year risk of Alzheimer disease in 3017 women and men who were carriers of the APOE ɛ44 genotype was, respectively, 7% and 6% at age 60-69 years, 16% and 12% at age 70-79 years, and 24% and 19% at age 80 years and older. 1 key finding →

Participants: 537 Evidence: low

Apolipoprotein E epsilon4 associated with chronic traumatic brain injury in boxing

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. JAMA 1997-07-01

Among the 30 boxers, 11 were found to be normal (CBI score=0), 12 showed mild deficits (CBI score=1-2), 4 were moderately impaired (CBI score=3-4), and 3 showed signs of severe impairment (CBI score > 4). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Higher phosphatidylcholine intake was associated with lower risk of incident dementia and better cognitive performance in men in eastern Finland. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Stroke interacts with APOE ε4 to influence dementia, with the association being more pronounced in APOE ε4 non‐carriers. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 336 Evidence: moderate

Shared Causal Paths underlying Alzheimer's dementia and Type 2 Diabetes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Scientific reports 2020-03-05

Although Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a central nervous system disease and type 2 diabetes MELLITUS (T2DM) is a metabolic disorder, an increasing number of genetic epidemiological studies show clear link between AD and T2DM. 5 key findings →

Participants: 448 Evidence: low

An association between the 19q13.2 chromosomal region and Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been reported in AD families and for sporadic AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: low

Moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury is one of the strongest environmental risk factors for the development of neurodegenerative diseases such as late-onset Alzheimer's disease, although it is unclear whether mild traumatic brain injury, or concussion, also confers risk. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Compelling evidence indicates that excess consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages plays an important role in the epidemic of obesity, a major risk factor for type 2 diabetes mellitus. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Air pollution is a serious environmental problem. 2 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

We confirm that variation in/near APOE/TOMM40 (P = 6 × 10(-14)) alters PCA risk, but with smaller effect than for typical AD (PCA: odds ratio [OR] = 2.03, typical AD: OR = 2.83, P = .0007). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Both apolipoprotein E (apoE) and 24(S)-hydroxycholesterol are involved in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Late-onset Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Continuum (Minneapolis, Minn.) 2019-02-01

Vascular risk factors, sleep disorders, and traumatic brain injury are associated with an increased risk of AD, while increased cognitive and physical activity throughout the lifespan reduce the risk of disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Cognitive frailty: Predementia syndrome and vascular risk factors

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2005-07-14

With increasing emphasis on early diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD), clinical research has focused on the identification of risk factors that may be modified at a preclinical and early clinical stage of dementing disorders. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Four hundred eighty-six participants developed dementia during 37,782 person-years of follow-up. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,205 Evidence: low

↑ 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.

1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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