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 1–25 of 202 studies in Genetics (page 1 of 9) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 202 studies tagged apoe4 — clear

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.

The ApoE Gene Is Related with Exceptional Longevity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 80 out of 100. Rejuvenation Research 2015-02

The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine the association of the apolipoprotein E ( ApoE ) gene with exceptional longevity (EL) ( i.e ., reaching 100+ years) by identifying possible unequal distribution of alleles/genotypes in the common variants ε2, ε3, and ε4 among centenarians and younger population. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,776 Evidence: high

The APOE ε4 allele remains the strongest genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer's disease and the APOE ε2 allele the strongest genetic protective factor after multiple large scale genome-wide association studies and genome-wide association meta-analyses. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The genetic underpinnings of Alzheimer's disease (AD) remain largely elusive despite early successes in identifying three genes that cause early-onset familial AD (those that encode amyloid precursor protein (APP) and the presenilins (PSEN1 and PSEN2)), and one genetic risk factor for late-onset AD (the gene that encodes apolipoprotein E (APOE)). 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified polymorphism in the Apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) to be the most prominent risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Growing evidence indicates that apolipoprotein E (ApoE) is one of the most important candidate genes for influencing the development of hemodialysis (HD). 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 485 Evidence: moderate

Deposition of amyloid-β (Aβ) in the cerebral cortex is thought to be a pivotal event in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis with a significant genetic contribution. 3 key findings →

Participants: 555 Evidence: low

The major known genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD), apolipoprotein E-4 (APOE-4), is associated with lowered parietal, temporal, and posterior cingulate cerebral glucose metabolism in patients with a clinical diagnosis of AD. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

We identified a PSEN1 (presenilin 1) mutation carrier from the world's largest autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease kindred, who did not develop mild cognitive impairment until her seventies, three decades after the expected age of clinical onset. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Herpes simplex virus type 1 in brain and risk of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 1997-01-01

By multiple logistic regression, the APOE-epsilon 4 allele frequency was significantly higher in the patients positive for HSV1 in brain than in the HSV1-negative AD group, the HSV1-positive non-AD group, or the HSV1-negative non-AD group (52.8% vs 10.0%, 3.6%, and 6.3%, respectively). 3 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: low

We investigated associations between apolipoprotein E (APOE) alleles and motor manifestations in Alzheimer's dementia (AD) capitalizing on National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center data: the baseline evaluations of older adults (≥60 years) with a diagnosis of AD were analyzed. 3 key findings →

Participants: 389 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

↑ 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 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