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 1,001–1,025 of 1,615 studies in Genetics(page 41 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.
The MR analysis conducted in this study found no statistically significant causal association between 20 dietary habits and the risk of AD (All p > 0.05). 4 key findings →
Transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) tools have been applied to conduct proteome-wide association studies (PWASs) by integrating proteomics data with genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary data. 2 key findings →
For decades, the study of genetically isolated populations has improved our understanding and management of genetic diseases that affect all populations. 5 key findings →
The molecules released into CSF, namely APOE2 for any dementia, APOE2 and Siglec-3 for AD, APOE2 for vascular dementia, and APOE2 for DLB, might be potential biomarkers. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2018-06-25
After more than 10 years of accumulated efforts, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have led to many findings, most of which have been deposited into the GWAS Catalog. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is a complex and progressive neurodegenerative disorder that accounts for the majority of individuals with dementia. 5 key findings →
The purpose of this protocol is to clearly describe the process for the scoping review we plan to conduct on the topic of polygenic risk scores (PRS) in common neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →
Two SNPs at novel loci, rs112404845 (P = 3.8 × 10-8), upstream of COBL, and rs16961023 (P = 4.6 × 10-8), downstream of SLC10A2, obtained genome-wide significant evidence of association with the posterior liability. 2 key findings →
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a prevalent neurodegenerative disorder, and recent evidence suggests that pathogenesis may be in part mediated by inflammatory processes, the molecular and cellular architectures of which are largely unknown. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Cell·2025-07-21
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a multifactorial neurodegenerative disorder characterized by heterogeneous molecular changes across diverse cell types, posing significant challenges for treatment development. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neuron·2025-03-31
We employed Stereo-seq combined with single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq) to investigate the gene expression and cell composition changes in human hippocampus with or without Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Biomolecules·2024-07-11
Microglia, as resident macrophages in the central nervous system, play a multifunctional role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Aging cell·2025-09-28
Aging represents a major risk for human neurodegenerative disorders, such as dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and is associated with a functional decline in neurons and impaired synaptic plasticity, leading to a gradual decline in memory. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neuron·2024-02-27
Highly penetrant autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease (ADAD) comprises a distinct disease entity as compared to the far more prevalent form of AD in which common variants collectively contribute to risk. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Cell reports·2025-11-26
The cerebellum, essential for motor coordination and increasingly recognized for its role in cognition, is typically considered more resilient to aging and largely spared from hallmark Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Cell stem cell·2024-04-15
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is an incurable group of early-onset dementias that can be caused by the deposition of hyperphosphorylated tau in patient brains. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Science advances·2025-11-12
The study of transcriptomic and epigenomic variations in neurodegenerative diseases, particularly tauopathies like Pick's disease (PiD) and Alzheimer's disease (AD), offers insights into their underlying regulatory mechanisms. 2 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.