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 1–15 of 15 studies in Genetics with an author at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 15 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

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.

We identified 4 novel genetic loci that implicate inflammatory and glial proliferative pathways in the development of WMH in addition to previously proposed ischemic mechanisms. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 17 Evidence: high

APOE-[epsilon]2 allele associated with higher prevalence of sporadic Parkinson disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2004-06-01

Unlike Alzheimer disease, for which the APOE-epsilon4 allele increases the prevalence and the APOE-epsilon2 allele is protective, the authors' analysis shows the APOE-epsilon2 allele, but not the APOE-epsilon4 allele, to be positively associated with sporadic Parkinson disease. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

After the change point, carriers had a statistically significant cognitive decline with a loss of 0.24 (95% CI, -0.26 to -0.22) points per year for the word list recall test and 2.13 (95% CI, -2.29 to -1.96) points per year for total scores. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 493 Evidence: moderate

Sex Differences in Alzheimer Disease Imaging Biomarkers in a Diverse, Community-Based Cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-01-27

A total of 503 participants (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [2.8] years; 321 [63.8%] women; 305 [60.6%] Hispanic, 120 [23.9%] non-Hispanic Black, and 78 [15.5%] non-Hispanic White) with Aβ PET, MRI (n = 501), and tau PET (n = 355) data were studied. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 501 Evidence: moderate

Apolipoprotein E Mimetic Peptide CN-105 and Postoperative Delirium in Older Patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-04-03

Among 203 enrolled patients, 186 (mean [SD] age, 68.7 [5.2] years; 119 males [64.0%]) were randomized (137 to the CN-105 group, 49 to the placebo group) and underwent surgery. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

HIV-infected subjects with the E4 allele for APOE have excess dementia and peripheral neuropathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Nature medicine 1998-10-01

HIV produces a chronic viral infection of the central nervous system that elicits chronic glial activation and overexpression of glial cytokines that are also implicated in Alzheimer disease (AD) pathogenesis. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

A total of 30 variants were overrepresented in four pathways: presenilin/Alzheimer disease, cadherin/WNT signaling, gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor, and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) signaling. 5 key findings →

Participants: 204 Evidence: low

Compared with men, women had greater amyloid burden (B = 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.07; P < .001), Braak stages III and IV (B = 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.08; P = .003) and Braak stages V and VI (B = 0.09; 95% CI, 0.06-0.12; P < .001) tau burden, and AD signature thickness (B = 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02-0.05; P < .001). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 501 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers and Subjective Cognitive Decline Among Hispanic and/or Latino Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. UNC Libraries 2026-07-11

Among 5712 adults (mean [SD] age, 63.47 (8.15) years; unweighted 3663 [53.92%] female), higher ln(ptau-181) was associated with ECog-12 memory (unstandardized β = 0.088; 95% CI, 0.005-0.170). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,712 Evidence: moderate

Niemann-Pick type C1 disease (NPC1) is an autosomal recessive neurovisceral storage disease caused by the mutation of NPC1 gene, resulting in perturbed intracellular transport of unesterified cholesterol. 4 key findings →

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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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