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 1–21 of 21 studies in Genetics published 2016 · free to read · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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 the 1430 cognitively normal participants included, the mean (SD) age was 79.5 (5.3) years, 49.4% were men, the mean duration of education was 14.3 years, and 25.4% were APOE ε4 carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,630 Evidence: moderate

Low frequency coding variants in TREM2 are associated with increased Alzheimer disease (AD) risk, while loss of functions mutations in the gene lead to an autosomal recessive early-onset dementia, named Nasu-Hakola disease (NHD). 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 180 Evidence: moderate

A recent genome-wide association meta-analysis for Alzheimer's disease (AD) identified 19 risk loci (in addition to APOE) in which the functional genes are unknown. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Among the 286 autopsied brains of 544 participants, brain mercury levels were positively correlated with the number of seafood meals consumed per week (ρ = 0.16; P = .02). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 286 Evidence: moderate

Better verbal memory in women than men in MCI despite similar levels of hippocampal atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2016-03-16

This advantage may represent a sex-specific form of cognitive reserve delaying verbal memory decline until more advanced disease stages. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 379 Evidence: low

After the change point, carriers had a statistically significant cognitive decline with a loss of 0.24 (95% CI, -0.26 to -0.22) points per year for the word list recall test and 2.13 (95% CI, -2.29 to -1.96) points per year for total scores. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 493 Evidence: moderate

Hypothetical Preclinical Alzheimer Disease Groups and Longitudinal Cognitive Change

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2016-06-01

These results suggest that, to optimize observing a treatment effect, clinical trials enrolling cognitively normal individuals should selectively recruit participants with abnormal levels of both amyloid and tau (ie, stage 2) because this group would be expected to show the greatest cognitive decline over time if untreated. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Association Between Genetic Traits for Immune-Mediated Diseases and Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub 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 →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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 →

Participants: 2,705 Evidence: moderate

Myo-inositol changes precede amyloid pathology and relate to APOE genotype in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 2016-04-15

Amyloid-positive cognitively healthy participants showed a significant increase in mI/creatine and mI/NAA levels compared to amyloid-negative healthy elderly (p Conclusions mI levels are elevated already at asymptomatic stages of AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Suspected non-Alzheimer disease pathophysiology--concept and controversy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2016-01-18

Suspected non-Alzheimer disease pathophysiology (SNAP) is a biomarker-based concept that applies to individuals with normal levels of amyloid-β biomarkers in the brain, but in whom biomarkers of neurodegeneration are abnormal. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

ApoE on high-density lipoproteins is primarily responsible for lipid transport and cholesterol homeostasis in the central nervous system (CNS). 1 key finding →

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.

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 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.

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

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed