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 2019 · 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.

Assessment of Racial Disparities in Biomarkers for Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2019-03-01

There were no racial differences in the frequency of cerebral ischemic lesions noted on results of brain magnetic resonance imaging, mean cortical standardized uptake value ratios for Pittsburgh compound B, or for amyloid-β42 concentrations in CSF. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,255 Evidence: moderate

Early tau deposition was elevated in women compared with men in individuals on the Alzheimer disease trajectory. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 89 Evidence: low

Estimates of AD disease duration become more accurate if age, sex, setting, APOE, and cerebrospinal fluid tau are taken into account. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,268 Evidence: low

Apolipoprotein E and Alzheimer disease: pathobiology and targeting strategies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2019-07-31

Polymorphism in the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene is a major genetic risk determinant of late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD), with the APOE*ε4 allele conferring an increased risk and the APOE*ε2 allele conferring a decreased risk relative to the common APOE*ε3 allele. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

These new knock-in strains offer a novel and dynamic tool to study the role of APOE in AD pathogenesis in a spatially and temporally controlled manner. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Elevated LDL-C levels were associated with higher probability of having EOAD, and EOAD cases were enriched for rare coding variants in APOB, which codes for the major protein of LDL-C. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our results demonstrate that endogenous expression of E4 by stem-cell-derived forebrain excitatory neurons predisposes neurons to calcium dysregulation and ultimately cell death. 4 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

Early-onset Alzheimer Disease and Its Variants

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

Neuroimaging features of early-onset AD in comparison to late-onset AD include greater frequency of hippocampal sparing and posterior neocortical atrophy, increased tau burden, and greater connectomic changes affecting frontoparietal networks rather than the default mode network. 5 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

ApoE4 impairs pericyte-mediated basement membrane formation, potentially contributing to the cerebrovascular effects of apoE4. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

NAD(P)H quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1) is a multi-functional protein that catalyses the reduction of quinones (and other molecules), thus playing roles in xenobiotic detoxification and redox balance, and also has roles in stabilising apoptosis regulators such as p53. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

OASIS-3: Longitudinal Neuroimaging, Clinical, and Cognitive Dataset for Normal Aging and Alzheimer Disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2019-12-15

OASIS-3 is a compilation of MRI and PET imaging and related clinical data for 1098 participants who were collected across several ongoing studies in the Washington University Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center over the course of 15 years. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,098 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.

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