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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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 751–775 of 1,615 studies in Genetics(page 31 of 65)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
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.
One of the major histopathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is redundant senile plaques mainly composed of beta-amyloid (Abeta) aggregates. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2006-07-01
These CSF A beta 42 findings are consistent with acceleration by the APOE*4 allele of pathogenic A beta 42 brain deposition starting in later middle age in persons with normal cognition. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurology·2005-01-01
A generally similar pattern of cerebral hypometabolism was detected in APOE epsilon4-positive and -negative patients with Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2018-07-01
Among 124 876 cases and controls, genome-wide conjunction analyses of ALS, FTD, PD, AD, CBD, and PSP revealed significant genetic overlap between ALS and FTD at known ALS loci: rs13302855 and rs3849942 (nearest gene, C9orf72; P = .03 for rs13302855 and P = .005 for rs3849942) and rs4239633 (nearest gene, UNC13A; P = .03). 3 key findings →
Several studies, including genome wide association studies (GWAS), have strongly suggested a central role for the ATP-binding cassette transporter subfamily A member 7 (ABCA7) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Stroke·2019-10-10
This study provides evidence to support that high Lp(a) concentrations was causally associated with an increased risk of large artery stroke but a decreased risk of small vessel stroke and Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurology·2021-11-03
Reproductive history events signaling more estrogen exposure such as premenopausal status, longer reproductive span, higher number of children, and use of HT and HC were associated with larger GMV in women in midlife. 4 key findings →
A total of 30 variants were overrepresented in four pathways: presenilin/Alzheimer disease, cadherin/WNT signaling, gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor, and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) signaling. 5 key findings →
Pivotal trials demonstrated statistically significant but modest average slowing of decline: Clarity AD showed a 0.45-point between-group difference in CDR-SB worsening at 18 months, and TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 showed a 3.25-point iADRS difference in the low/medium-tau population at 76 weeks. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature genetics·2021-01-28
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified many risk loci for Alzheimer's disease (AD) 1,2 , but how these loci confer AD risk is unclear. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature communications·2021-03-12
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 40 loci associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the causal variants, regulatory elements, genes and pathways remain largely unknown, impeding a mechanistic understanding of AD pathogenesis. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2010-10-01
Within this region, we defined a 42-SNP haplotype that was associated with significantly increased risk of ALS (p=7·47×10(-33) when people with familial ALS were compared with controls, odds ratio 21·0, 95% CI 11·2-39·1) and which overlapped with an association locus recently reported for frontotemporal dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature communications·2016-04-15
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are overlapping, fatal neurodegenerative disorders in which the molecular and pathogenic basis remains poorly understood. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature neuroscience·2021-01-11
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by the selective vulnerability of specific neuronal populations, the molecular signatures of which are largely unknown. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature communications·2021-05-21
The role of microglia cells in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is well recognized, however their molecular and functional diversity remain unclear. 4 key findings →
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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.