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
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,226–1,250 of 1,528 studies in Genetics marked Peer-reviewed(page 50 of 62)· 28,580 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)
From OpenAlex; 14,058 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.
Common diseases such as endometriosis (ED), Alzheimer's disease (AD) and multiple sclerosis (MS) account for a significant proportion of the health care burden in many countries. 3 key findings →
The immune response, regulation of endocytosis, cholesterol transport, and protein ubiquitination represent prime targets for AD therapeutics. 2 key findings →
The UPR is activated in disease affected regions in PSP and the genetic evidence shows that this activation increases risk for PSP and is not a protective response. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Genome medicine·2016-01-19
We have characterized changes in DNA methylation in the superior temporal gyrus of patients with Alzheimer's disease, highlighting novel loci that facilitate better characterization of pathways and mechanisms underlying Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis, and improve our understanding of epigenetic signatures that may contribute to the development of disease. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2009-11-01
Epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation and modifications to histone proteins regulate high-order DNA structure and gene expression. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Cell·2022-06-01
The impact of apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOE4), the strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD), on human brain cellular function remains unclear. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Neuron·2022-04-04
Resolving glial contributions to Alzheimer's disease (AD) is necessary because changes in neuronal function, such as reduced synaptic density, altered electrophysiological properties, and degeneration, are not entirely cell autonomous. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·PloS one·2008-07-16
Despite an enormous research effort, most cases of late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) still remain unexplained and the current biomedical science is still a long way from the ultimate goal of revealing clear risk factors that can help in the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of the disease. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Neuron·2021-04-07
The apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene is the strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease and directly influences tauopathy and tau-mediated neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Neuron·2021-11-18
The hippocampal-entorhinal system supports cognitive functions, has lifelong neurogenic capabilities in many species, and is selectively vulnerable to Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Biological psychiatry·1999-09-01
The method of single-cell recording in awake behaving monkeys as they perform behavioral tasks is perhaps the most powerful approach to understanding the neural basis of behavior. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·PloS one·2011-01-21
Recent studies strongly indicate that aberrations in the control of gene expression might contribute to the initiation and progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Intranasal insulin administration raises central nervous system (CNS) insulin levels in humans and acutely facilitates verbal memory in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), an effect that may differ by APOE genotype. 2 key findings →
ABCA1 is an ATP-binding cassette protein that transports cellular cholesterol and phospholipids onto high density lipoproteins (HDL) in plasma. 4 key findings →
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have led to a rapid increase in available data on common genetic variants and phenotypes and numerous discoveries of new loci associated with susceptibility to common complex diseases. 1 key finding →
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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%),
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 (3.6% 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.