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 50 studies scoring ≥ 67 out of 100 (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 50 studies tagged variants — 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.

General cognitive function is substantially heritable across the human life course from adolescence to old age. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 53,949 Evidence: high

We identified four plasma protein level PGSs that were significantly associated (FDR-adjusted p < 0.05) with LOAD in a meta-analysis of the discovery and replication cohorts: CX3CL1, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), TIE2, and matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 17,747 Evidence: high

The APOE4 allele, but not AD-GRS, was associated with baseline lower hippocampus volume (β = -0.27, p = 0.001), greater amyloid deposition (β = 0.48, p = 0.001), 2-year decline in hippocampus (β = -0.27, p = 0.01), total gray matter volume (β = -0.25, p = 0.01), and cortical thickness (β = -0.28, p = 0.003). 5 key findings →

Participants: 126 Evidence: high

We identified and validated five novel gene associations in cortical brain tissue ( PRKAG1 , C3orf62 , LYSMD4 , ZNF439 , SLC11A2 ) and six genes proximal to known AD-related GWAS loci (Blood: MYBPC3 ; Brain: MTCH2 , CYB561 , MADD , PSMA5 , ANXA11 ). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,683 Evidence: high

For ACD, novel loci identified were associated with energy transport (SEMA4D), neuronal excitability (ANO3), amyloid deposition in the brain (RBFOX1), and magnetic resonance imaging markers of small vessel disease (SVD; HBEGF). 5 key findings →

Participants: 800,597 Evidence: low

These results provide new insight into the genetic basis of habitual PA, and the genetic links connecting PA with other traits and diseases. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 8,556 Evidence: high

We developed an endophenotype disease module-based methodology for Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug repurposing and identified sildenafil as a potential disease risk modifier. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: high

The aims of this study were to identify candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and mechanisms of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to generate SNP to gene to pathway hypotheses. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 370,542 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease risk variants show association with cerebrospinal fluid amyloid beta

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Neurogenetics 2008-09-24

The use of quantitative endophenotypes in genetic studies may provide greater power, allowing for the use of powerful statistical methods and a biological model for the effects of the disease-associated genetic variation. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 313 Evidence: high

Genome-wide association studies have discovered numerous genomic loci associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD); yet the causal genes and variants are incompletely identified. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Multi-ancestry meta-analysis and fine-mapping in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2023-05-18

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of Alzheimer's disease are predominantly carried out in European ancestry individuals despite the known variation in genetic architecture and disease prevalence across global populations. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Previously reported pathogenic variants in the six genes were identified in 1.35% of EOAD (3/223) and 6.58% of EOnonAD (5/76). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 299 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
  • 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