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 1,276–1,300 of 1,615 studies in Genetics(page 52 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.
Apolipoprotein E (APOE) is the major cholesterol carrier in the brain, affecting various normal cellular processes including neuronal growth, repair and remodeling of membranes, synaptogenesis, clearance and degradation of amyloid β (Aβ) and neuroinflammation. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most prevalent form of neurodegenerative disease, currently affecting over 5 million Americans with projections expected to rise as the population ages. 1 key finding →
Ample evidence suggests that ApoE4 induces microglial dysregulation and impedes Aβ clearance in AD, but the direct neuronal effects of ApoE variants are poorly studied. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·G3 (Bethesda, Md.)·2020-08-05
Genetic and epidemiological studies have found that variations in the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and the apoliopoprotein E (APOE) genes represent major modifiers of the progressive neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
In a cell free assay, ADAM10 activity was found to be significantly lower in apoE4 samples compared to apoE2. 7WCHO cells over expressing wild type AβPP exposed to apoE4 demonstrated reduced formation of sAβPPα compared to other apoE isoforms. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Biomolecules·2019-01-29
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia and, after age, the greatest risk factor for developing AD is the allelic variation of apolipoprotein E (ApoE), with homozygote carriers of the ApoE4 allele having an up to 12-fold greater risk of developing AD than noncarriers. 1 key finding →
It is well established that sporadic Alzheimer's disease (AD) is polygenic with common and rare genetic variation alongside environmental factors contributing to disease. 1 key finding →
In the clinical diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies, distinction from Alzheimer's disease is suboptimal and complicated by shared genetic risk factors and frequent co-pathology. 4 key findings →
Neurodegenerative diseases, neuropsychiatric disorders, and related traits have highly complex etiologies but are also highly heritable and identifying the causal genes and biological pathways underlying these traits may advance the development of treatments and preventive strategies. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) polygenic risk score (PGS) is associated with lower cognitive functioning even among older individuals without dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·BMC genomics·2020-12-29
In this paper, we used the MGAS (Multivariate Gene-based Association test by extended Simes procedure) tool to perform multivariate GWAS on eight AD-relevant subcortical imaging measures. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·BMC bioinformatics·2020-02-24
In this regard, this study presents GenEpi, a computational package to uncover epistasis associated with phenotypes by the proposed machine learning approach. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Genetics·2019-04-22
It becomes increasingly important in using genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to select important genetic information associated with qualitative or quantitative traits. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Genes·2019-03-15
Human longevity is a complex phenotype resulting from the combinations of context-dependent gene-environment interactions that require analysis as a dynamic process in a cohesive ecological and evolutionary framework. 5 key findings →
We aimed to summarize the recent advances in genetic findings of Alzheimer's disease (AD), focusing on traditional single-marker and gene approaches and non-traditional ones, i.e., polygenic and epistatic components. 5 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.