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 26–50 of 68 studies with an author at Mayo Clinic in Florida (US) (page 2 of 3) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 68 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 68 studies tagged precursor — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

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.

Compared with individuals with the APOEepsilon3/epsilon3, the odds of having AD were significantly increased among those with 1 or more copies of the epsilon4 allele; the odds ratio (OR) for the epsilon3/epsilon4 genotype was 2.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-3.7), and the OR for the epsilon4/epsilon4 genotype was 10.5 (95% CI, 5.1-21.8). 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 338 Evidence: moderate

ApoE Cascade Hypothesis in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neuron 2022-03-16

The ε4 allele of the apolipoprotein E gene (APOE4) is a strong genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and several other neurodegenerative conditions, including Lewy body dementia (LBD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Genetic causes of Alzheimer's disease (AD) include mutations in the amyloid precursor protein (APP), presenilin 1 (PS1), and presenilin 2 (PS2) genes. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The plasma Abeta42/Abeta40 ratio may be a useful premorbid biomarker for identifying cognitively normal elderly white subjects who are at increased risk for developing MCI or AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 53 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative dementia with multi-layered complexity in its molecular etiology. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The extent to which the pathophysiology of autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease corresponds to the pathophysiology of 'sporadic' late onset Alzheimer's disease is unknown, thus limiting the extrapolation of study findings and clinical trial results in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease to late onset Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 559 Evidence: low

C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansions in clinical Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2013-06-01

Hexanucleotide repeat expansions in the chromosome 9 open reading frame 72 (C9orf72) gene underlie a significant fraction of frontotemporal dementia and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

These results suggest that GSTO locus variants may lower brain GSTO2 levels and consequently confer AD risk in older age. 5 key findings →

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

The objective of this study was to analyze factors influencing the risk and timing of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in central Norway. 4 key findings →

Participants: 376 Evidence: low

Although pathogenic variants in PSEN1 leading to autosomal-dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) are highly penetrant, substantial interindividual variability in the rates of cognitive decline and biomarker change are observed in ADAD. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype is the major genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD); the ε4 allele increases risk and the ε2 allele is protective. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Of 214 participants, 48 showed no decline on any test, 126 showed decline on only 1 test in 1 or more domains, and 40 showed decline on 2 or more tests in 1 or more domains. 2 key findings →

Participants: 214 Evidence: low

APOE4 is the greatest risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD) and synergistic effects with amyloid-β peptide (Aβ) suggest interactions among apoE isoforms and different forms of Aβ accumulation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Human apolipoprotein E (apoE) isoforms may differentially modulate amyloid-β (Aβ) levels. 5 key findings →

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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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