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

28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1,451–1,475 of 1,528 studies in Genetics marked Peer-reviewed (page 59 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)

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; 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.

Complete protein characterization using top-down mass spectrometry and ultraviolet photodissociation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2013-06-04

The top-down approach to proteomics offers compelling advantages due to the potential to provide complete characterization of protein sequence and post-translational modifications. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Lymphocytes as a neural probe: potential for studying psychiatric disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry 2004-05-01

There is an increasing body evidence pointing to a close integration between the central nervous system (CNS) and immunological functions with lymphocytes playing therein a central role. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The senescence-accelerated prone mouse (SAMP8): a model of age-related cognitive decline with relevance to alterations of the gene expression and protein abnormalities in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Experimental gerontology 2005-07-18

The senescence-accelerated mouse (SAM) is an accelerated aging model that was established through phenotypic selection from a common genetic pool of AKR/J strain of mice. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Redox proteomics identification of oxidized proteins in Alzheimer's disease hippocampus and cerebellum: an approach to understand pathological and biochemical alterations in AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2005-11-04

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by the presence of neurofibrillary tangles, senile plaques and loss of synapses. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Proteomic studies of potential cerebrospinal fluid protein markers for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Brain research. Molecular brain research 2003-10-01

By comparing the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteome between Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients and controls, it may be possible to identify proteins that play a role in the disease process and thus to study the pathogenesis of AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Aberrant expression of peroxiredoxin subtypes in neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Brain research 2003-03-01

An increasing body of evidence indicates that oxidative stress and damage play a role in the pathogenesis of a number of diseases associated with neurodegeneration, including Down syndrome (DS), Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Pick's disease (PD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

High-throughput profiling of the mitochondrial proteome using affinity fractionation and automation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Electrophoresis 2000-10-01

Recent studies have demonstrated the need for complementing cellular genomic information with specific information on expressed proteins, or proteomics, since the correlation between the two is poor. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Regulator of G‐protein signalling 5 protects against atherosclerosis in apolipoprotein E‐deficient mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. British Journal of Pharmacology 2015-01-12

Atherosclerotic phenotypes were significantly accelerated in RGS 5 −/− ApoE −/− mice, as indicated by increased inflammatory mediator expression and apoptosis of endothelial cells and macrophages. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Disturbed flow induces systemic changes in metabolites in mouse plasma: a metabolomics study using ApoE −/− mice with partial carotid ligation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 2015-01-01

Disturbed blood flow (d-flow) occurring in branched and curved arteries promotes endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis, in part, by altering gene expression and epigenomic profiles in endothelial cells. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Angiotensin II Mobilizes Spleen Monocytes to Promote the Development of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Apoe −/− Mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 2015-02

Intriguingly, the process is dependent on the presence of B cells and significantly contributes to the development of AAA and the occurrence of aortic rupture. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

A Peptide Antagonist of Thrombospondin-1 Promotes Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Progression in the Angiotensin II–Infused Apolipoprotein-E–Deficient Mouse

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 2015-02

LSKL peptide administration was associated with greater aortic elastin fragmentation and lower expression and activity of the TGF-β1-target gene lysyl oxidase like 1 ( LOXL1 ). 3 key findings →

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 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed