alzhub.org
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.

Research

28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 101–125 of 149 studies in Genetics in Neurology (page 5 of 6) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 149 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.

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 14,058 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Progressive regional atrophy in normal adults with a maternal history of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2011-03-01

We conclude that FHm individuals without dementia have progressive gray matter volume reductions in select AD-vulnerable brain regions, specifically the precuneus and parahippocampal gyrus. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Course of cerebral amyloid angiopathy-related inflammation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2007-04-01

Baseline MRI scans were characterized by asymmetric T2-hyperintense lesions extending to the subcortical white matter and occasionally the overlying gray matter, with signal properties suggesting vasogenic edema. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Neuropathologic intermediate phenotypes enhance association to Alzheimer susceptibility alleles

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2009-04-01

Discovery efforts for susceptibility loci for Alzheimer disease could benefit from the use of neuropathologic intermediate phenotypes as a complement to other approaches. 2 key findings →

Participants: 625 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

CSF biomarkers for Alzheimer disease correlate with cortical brain biopsy findings

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2012-04-18

Amyloid plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau in cortical brain biopsies are reflected by low CSF Aβ42 and high CSF tau and p-tau levels, respectively. 2 key findings →

Participants: 182 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Association of hypometabolism and amyloid levels in aging, normal subjects

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2014-05-02

Hypometabolism in PiB-positive, cognitively normal subjects in a population-based cohort occurs in AD-signature cortical regions and to a lesser extent in other cortical regions. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Regional amyloid accumulation and cognitive decline in initially amyloid-negative adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurology 2018-10-10

Our results indicate that assessing regional changes in amyloid, particularly in posterior cortical regions, can aid in the early detection of subclinical amyloid-related decline in episodic memory as early as middle age. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Insulin resistance is associated with the pathology of Alzheimer disease: the Hisayama study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2010-08-25

The results of this study suggest that hyperinsulinemia and hyperglycemia caused by insulin resistance accelerate NP formation in combination with the effects of APOE epsilon4. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

fMRI evidence of compensatory mechanisms in older adults at genetic risk for Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2005-02-01

The results suggest that brain response differences are not due to poorer general memory abilities, differential atrophy, or brain response during control conditions, but instead appear to be directly influenced by APOE genotype. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

APOE epsilon2 is associated with intact cognition but increased Alzheimer pathology in the oldest old

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2009-03-01

In the oldest old, the presence of the APOE epsilon2 allele (APOE2) was associated with a somewhat reduced risk of dementia, but paradoxically was associated with increased Alzheimer disease (AD) neuropathology. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Brain volume changes in CADASIL: a serial MRI study in pure subcortical ischemic vascular disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2006-05-01

The NBV significantly correlated with all clinical scores (Rankin, NIH Stroke Scale, Barthel, structured interview for the diagnosis of Alzheimer dementia and multi-infarct dementia, Mattis dementia rating scale) at both time points independently of age and sex. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

↑ 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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