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 201–225 of 1,346 studies (page 9 of 54) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 1,346 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.

Overall, the available evidence suggests that natural compounds confer multitarget neuroprotective effects that directly engage with key pathological mechanisms underlying AD. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 41 Evidence: high

The study reported the cloning of a novel gene (E5-1) encoded on chromosome 1 with sequence similarity to the S182 gene on chromosome 14q24.3. 5 key findings →

These findings suggest that DPP-4i use is associated with low amyloid burden and favorable long-term cognitive outcome in diabetic patients with ADCI. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate

Apolipoprotein E is immunochemically localized to the senile plaques, vascular amyloid, and neurofibrillary tangles of Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The association between the apoE epsilon4 allele and Alzheimer disease does not seem to be mediated by vascular factors. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,449 Evidence: low

Although Aβ did not differ by sex, cognitive decline was greater in females with higher Aβ. 3 key findings →

Participants: 755 Evidence: low

The presence of epsilon 4 was associated with risk of developing AD on follow-up (relative risk, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.89). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 624 Evidence: moderate

Although there were no significant differences among the 3 groups of participants in their clinical ratings, neuropsychological test scores, hippocampal volumes (P = .60), or hippocampal glucose metabolism measurements (P = .12), there were significant group differences in their posterior cingulate glucose metabolism measurements (P = .001). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 31 Evidence: low

Targeted sequencing of confirmed GWAS loci revealed an excess burden of deleterious coding mutations in LOAD, with the greatest burden observed in ABCA7 and BIN1. 4 key findings →

Participants: 176 Evidence: low

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

Phenotypic personality dimensions, primarily neuroticism and extraversion, moderate the relationship between APOE [Latin Small Letter Open E]-4 genotype and cognitive outcomes among older adults. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

The risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) probably results from an interaction between genetic and environmental factors. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,449 Evidence: low

We examined longitudinal associations between the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (ApoE4(+) status) and several cognitive outcomes and tested effect modification by sex. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 113 Evidence: moderate

APOE ε4 carriers share immune-related proteomic changes across neurodegenerative diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Nature medicine 2025-07-15

The APOE ε4 genetic variant is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) and is increasingly being implicated in other neurodegenerative diseases. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

From across this tag

10 of the 1,344 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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