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 126–150 of 1,615 studies in Genetics(page 6 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2015-09-01
Within-person changes in CSF biomarkers were also compared with changes in cortical PiB binding and progression to a CDR higher than 0 at follow-up. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2020-10-01
However, the clinical presentation, associated factors, frequency in community-based cohorts, genetic characteristics, and cognitive trajectories associated with the quadruple misfolded proteins phenotype are not well understood. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2015-04-01
At 48 months, group differences between clinical progressors and non-progressors were significant for self (2.13, SE=0.45, P Conclusions and relevance Demonstrating long-term clinical benefit will be critical for the success of recently launched secondary prevention trials. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-07-24
The (11)C-PiB-PET imaging results demonstrated reduction of fibrillar Aβ accumulation in patients with Alzheimer disease treated with bapineuzumab; however, as no clinical benefit was observed, the findings are consistent with the hypotheses that bapineuzumab may not have been initiated early enough in the disease course, the doses were insufficient, or the most critical Aβ species were inadequately targeted. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Nature Aging·2025-11-24
Delirium is an acute change in cognition, common in hospitalized older adults, and associated with high healthcare and human cost; however, delirium's genetic and proteomic background remains poorly understood. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2011-03-09
We found that common variation at the CR1 locus has a broad impact on cognition and that this effect is largely mediated by an individual's amyloid plaque burden. 4 key findings →
Most people's cognitive abilities decline with age, with significant and partly genetically driven, individual differences in rate of change. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·eLife·2020-10-19
Combining human cohort data (over 24,000 people) with mouse models, this study found that carrying the APOE2 gene variant is linked to a longer lifespan, and that this benefit holds even when accounting for Alzheimer's diagnosis and brain pathology. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2014-08-01
In ADNI, Aβ-positive participants showed more decline than did Aβ-negative participants with regard to the ADCS-PACC score at 24 months (mean [SE] difference, -1.239 [0.522] [95% CI, -2.263 to -0.215]; P = .02). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·JAMA·1995-03-01
These results suggest that the inheritance of APOE epsilon 4 is associated with reduced cerebral parietal metabolism and increased asymmetry in non-demented relatives at risk for probable AD. 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.