APOE4 confers greater AD risk in women. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 5,496 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) significantly increases in individuals carrying the APOEε4 allele. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control Participants: 7,185 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After correcting for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni procedure, we observed a statistically significant interaction between APOE-ε4 and sex on CSF total tau (β = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.55; P Conclusions and relevance We provide robust evidence of a stronger association between APOE-ε4 and CSF tau levels among women compared with men across multiple independent data sets. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,798 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Two regions achieved genome-wide significance with TDP-43: apolipoprotein E (APOE) and TMEM106B. Three loci reached genome-wide significance with HS: APOE, TMEM106B, and granulin precursor (GRN). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 9,509 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings suggest that statins might be associated with a lower risk of incident AD among individuals with the APOE ε4 allele. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 4,807 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
APOE4 is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 4417 participants in the study included 2618 women (59%) and had a mean (SD) age of 71.3 (4.7) years. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,618 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Genetic risk factors of AD dementia demonstrate effects related to Aβ, as well as synergistic interactions with Aβ. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 702 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A polygenic score (PGS) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) was derived recently from data on genome-wide significant loci in European ancestry populations. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A significant portion of sleep-disordered breathing is associated with ApoE epsilon4 in the general population. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The genotype KL-VSHET+ is associated with reduced AD risk and Aβ burden in individuals who are aged 60 to 80 years, cognitively normal, and carrying APOE4. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although Aβ did not differ by sex, cognitive decline was greater in females with higher Aβ. 3 key findings →
Participants: 755 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings highlight the value of transethnic studies for identifying novel AD susceptibility loci. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Insulin resistance (IR) is the main pathological condition underlying vascular disorders, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, which are well established risk factors for cognitive decline and Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The APOE ε4 allele segregated dose-dependently and selectively with CA1-SRLM thinning and worse episodic memory performance in a pool of older subjects across a cognitive spectrum. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Previous studies have prioritized trait-relevant cell types by looking for an enrichment of genome-wide association study (GWAS) signal within functional regions. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) predict an individual's genetic risk for complex diseases, yet their utility in elucidating disease biology remains limited. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
43/100
Damaging nonsynonymous ABCA1 variants had differential AD risk effects between APOE genotype groups and exhibited interaction effects with APOE ε2 and ε4. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Structural variants (SVs) are a major source of genetic variation yet remain underexplored in healthy aging and neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →