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 81 studies in Genetics published 2022 (page 2 of 4) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 81 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.

The apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) allele is associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer disease and a decreased risk of glaucoma, but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Disrupted iron homeostasis is associated with several neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), and may be partially modulated by genetic risk factors. 4 key findings →

Participants: 27,535 Evidence: low

Ethnic differences in the frequency of β-amyloid deposition in cognitively normal individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2022-03-07

We investigated which factors might explain the differences between the frequencies of brain β-amyloid (Aβ) deposition in Korean and European cognitively normal individuals (CNs). 1 key finding →

Participants: 434 Evidence: low

Polygenic score for Alzheimer's disease identifies differential atrophy in hippocampal subfield volumes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. PloS one 2022-07-13

Hippocampal subfield atrophy is a prime structural change in the brain, associated with cognitive aging and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,086 Evidence: low

Clinical genetic diagnosis was achieved in 7 of 50 (14%) of the patients, with a further 8 patients (16%) found to have established risk factors which may have contributed to their EOD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 50 Evidence: moderate

We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of human extreme longevity (EL), defined as surviving past the 99th survival percentile, by aggregating data from four centenarian studies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,304 Evidence: low

Using the data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), we performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) between 565,373 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and 16 key AD biomarkers from 1,576 subjects at four visits. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,576 Evidence: low

Robust and accessible biomarkers that can capture the heterogeneity of Alzheimer's disease and its diverse pathological processes are urgently needed. 2 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

A human brain vascular atlas reveals diverse mediators of Alzheimer's risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Nature 2022-02-14

The human brain vasculature is of great medical importance: its dysfunction causes disability and death 1 , and the specialized structure it forms-the blood-brain barrier-impedes the treatment of nearly all brain disorders 2,3 . 2 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