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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 701–725 of 1,615 studies in Genetics (page 29 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.

Other subjects

Authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 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.

APOE and cognitive decline in preclinical Alzheimer disease and non-demented aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2004-09-01

Although possession of the APOE epsilon4 allele is a risk factor for AD in old age, it does not modify the progression of the disease during the preclinical period. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Associations of dietary choline intake with risk of incident dementia and with cognitive performance: the Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. The American journal of clinical nutrition 2019-12-01

Higher phosphatidylcholine intake was associated with lower risk of incident dementia and better cognitive performance in men in eastern Finland. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Effects of APOE on brain white matter microstructure in healthy adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2012-10-24

APOE affects microstructural properties of the brain WM from early adulthood, but the specific allelic effects do not directly reflect the associated risk of developing Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

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

APOE Genotype Modulates the Relationship of Stroke With Dementia Risk: Associations and Peripheral Clues for Biological Mechanisms

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of the American Heart Association 2025-12-17

Stroke interacts with APOE ε4 to influence dementia, with the association being more pronounced in APOE ε4 non‐carriers. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 336 Evidence: moderate

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

Epigenetic age of the pre-frontal cortex is associated with neuritic plaques, amyloid load, and Alzheimer's disease related cognitive functioning

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Aging 2015-12-01

There is an urgent need to develop molecular biomarkers of brain age in order to advance our understanding of age related neurodegeneration. 3 key findings →

Participants: 700 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Human neocortical expansion involves glutamatergic neuron diversification

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Nature 2021-10-06

The neocortex is disproportionately expanded in human compared with mouse 1,2 , both in its total volume relative to subcortical structures and in the proportion occupied by supragranular layers composed of neurons that selectively make connections within the neocortex and with other telencephalic structures. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Integrative network analysis of nineteen brain regions identifies molecular signatures and networks underlying selective regional vulnerability to Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Genome medicine 2016-11-01

This transcriptomic network analysis of 19 brain regions provides a comprehensive assessment of the critical molecular pathways associated with AD pathology and offers new insights into molecular mechanisms underlying selective regional vulnerability to AD at different stages of the progression of cognitive compromise and development of the canonical neuropathological lesions of AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 125 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Global quantitative analysis of the human brain proteome in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Scientific data 2018-03-13

Patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) often have overlap in clinical presentation and brain neuropathology suggesting that these two diseases share common underlying mechanisms. 1 key finding →

Participants: 80 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

FGWAS: Functional genome wide association analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. NeuroImage 2017-07-20

Functional phenotypes (e.g., subcortical surface representation), which commonly arise in imaging genetic studies, have been used to detect putative genes for complexly inherited neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders. 2 key findings →

Participants: 708 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Polygenic risk for Alzheimer's disease shapes hippocampal scene-selectivity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology 2020-01-02

Preclinical models of Alzheimer's disease (AD) suggest APOE modulates brain function in structures vulnerable to AD pathophysiology. 5 key findings →

Participants: 608 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Comprehensive single-cell transcriptomic atlas of microglia in Alzheimer's disease mouse models

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2026-03-21

Microglia are central mediators of neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet conserved microglial states and activation trajectories across AD mouse models remain incompletely defined. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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