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 57 studies in Genetics with an author at University of Washington (US) (page 2 of 3) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 57 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.

Serum cholesterol and risk of Alzheimer disease: a community-based cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2005-10-01

The data do not support an association between serum total cholesterol or high density lipoprotein in late life and subsequent risk of dementia or Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Previously derived polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) perform inconsistently across diverse ancestries. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Evidence: high

APOEε2 is associated with milder clinical and pathological Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2015-06-01

Even when adjusted for age at onset, symptom duration, and other demographic variables, APOEε2 is associated with milder AD pathology and less severe antemortem cognitive impairment compared to APOEε3 and ε4 alleles, suggesting a relative neuroprotective effect of APOEε2 in AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

This enlarged study confirms earlier findings that statin therapy in early old age, but not in late age, may be associated with a lower risk of AD. 4 key findings →

Participants: 3,099 Evidence: moderate

The study included 1,028 participants (mean age at baseline 76.4 years; 47.6% female): 521 with ADP, 96 with LBP, and 411 with mixed AD-LBP. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,028 Evidence: moderate

Occupational exposure to pesticides increases the risk of incident AD: the Cache County study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2010-05-01

Commonly used organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides inhibit acetylcholinesterase at synapses in the somatic, autonomic, and central nervous systems and may therefore have lasting effects on the nervous system. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

These data suggest that having both diabetes and APOE epsilon4 increases the risk of dementia, especially for AD and mixed AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

These data confirm that NPS are risk factors for conversion from CIND to dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 230 Evidence: low

Benefits of fatty fish on dementia risk are stronger for those without APOE epsilon4

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurology 2005-11-01

In the Cardiovascular Health Cognition Study, consumption of fatty fish was associated with a reduced risk of dementia and Alzheimer disease for those without the APOE epsilon4 allele. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The number of trait loci in late-onset Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. American journal of human genetics 2000-01-01

Although it is clear that apoE plays an important role in the genetics of late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD), evidence exists that additional genes may play a role in AD, and estimates of the total contribution of apoE to the variance in onset of AD vary widely. 2 key findings →

Participants: 742 Evidence: low

Despite the success of large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWASs) on complex traits, our understanding of their genetic architecture is far from complete. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

These CSF A beta 42 findings are consistent with acceleration by the APOE*4 allele of pathogenic A beta 42 brain deposition starting in later middle age in persons with normal cognition. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) undertook whole exome sequencing in 5,740 late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD) cases and 5,096 cognitively normal controls primarily of European ancestry (EA), among whom 218 cases and 177 controls were Caribbean Hispanic (CH). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The epsilon(4) allele of APOE confers a two- to fourfold increased risk for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), but LOAD pathology does not all fit neatly around APOE. 3 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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