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 251–275 of 1,615 studies in Genetics (page 11 of 65) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified polymorphism in the Apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) to be the most prominent risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The established association of APOE*4 carriers with AD was confirmed in this community-based sample of older subjects (odds ratio (OR) = 2.22; p = 9.36E-14) and was stronger in females (OR = 2.72; p = 1.74E-10) than in males (OR = 1.88; p = 2.43E-05). 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Participants with faster DunedinPACE had poorer cognitive functioning at baseline and experienced more rapid cognitive decline over follow-up. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,296 Evidence: moderate

EOAD, although sharing genes with LOAD, harbors unique genes and pathways that could be used to create better prediction models or target identification. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control Participants: 25,236 Evidence: moderate

Better verbal memory in women than men in MCI despite similar levels of hippocampal atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2016-03-16

This advantage may represent a sex-specific form of cognitive reserve delaying verbal memory decline until more advanced disease stages. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 379 Evidence: low

While prior work reliably demonstrates that the APOE ɛ4 allele has deleterious group level effects on Alzheimer disease pathology, the homogeneity of its influence across the lifespan and spatially in the brain remains unknown. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In this review, the evidence that single clinically defined cardiovascular risk factors are significantly associated with incident AD is inconsistent at best. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

β-Amyloid and tau biomarkers and clinical phenotype in dementia with Lewy bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2020-09-28

Alzheimer disease pathologic changes are common in DLB and are associated with the clinical phenotype. β-Amyloid is associated with cognitive impairment, and tau pathology is associated with lower frequency of clinical features of DLB. 5 key findings →

Participants: 417 Evidence: moderate

Association of Klotho-VS Heterozygosity With Risk of Alzheimer Disease in Individuals Who Carry APOE4

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2020-07-01

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

Evidence for an Alzheimer disease susceptibility locus on chromosome 12 and for further locus heterogeneity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA 1998-08-01

Using parametric methods, no evidence for linkage to the region spanned by the chromosome 12 markers could be detected if familial AD is assumed to arise from the same genetic locus in all 53 families. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 173 Evidence: moderate

Among the 183 study participants, mean (SD) age was 85.5 (3) years, 76 were women (41.5%), and 177 were white (96.7%). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 183 Evidence: low

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

This preliminary report suggests that CETP V405 valine homozygosity is associated with slower memory decline and lower incident dementia and AD risk. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 523 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