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
28,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,676–1,700 of 1,819 studies in Genetics(page 68 of 73)· 28,980 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; 14,457 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 36 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2010-03-01
In a genome-wide association study of structural brain degeneration, we mapped the 3D profile of temporal lobe volume differences in 742 brain MRI scans of Alzheimer's disease patients, mildly impaired, and healthy elderly subjects. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a highly heritable disease (with heritability up to 76%) with a complex genetic profile of susceptibility, among which large genome-wide association studies (GWASs) pointed to the phosphatidylinositol-binding clathrin assembly protein (PICALM) gene as a susceptibility locus for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) incidence. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease is a complex and progressive neurodegenerative disease leading to loss of memory, cognitive impairment, and ultimately death. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Gene·2014-05-15
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia in the elderly and represents an important and increasing clinical challenge in terms of diagnosis and treatment. 2 key findings →
Over the past decade, research aiming to disentangle the genetic underpinnings of late-onset Alzheimer's disease has mostly focused on the identification of common variants through genome-wide association studies. 3 key findings →
Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is caused by the cerebrovascular deposition of Alzheimer amyloid beta protein (Abeta) and shows an increased incidence in carriers of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) epsilon4 genotype. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100.·European Psychiatry·2026-06-01
Hierarchical linear regression was used to assess an incremental contribution of the set of inflammatory markers’ PRS to explaining VF variance compared to the null model. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100.·Medicine·2025-10-03
Previous observational studies demonstrated that lung cancer and both Alzheimer disease (AD) and Parkinson disease (PD) may be related. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100.·Medicine·2025-10-17
This study aimed to investigate the bidirectional causal relationship between celiac disease (CD) and the risk of Alzheimer disease (AD) or frontotemporal dementia (FTD) using Mendelian randomization (MR), in order to clarify prior inconsistent findings. 3 key findings →
The knockdown of α7 nAChR in the hippocampus of adult mice rapidly induced cognitive deficits, impairments in learning and memory, and led to the increase of amyloid-β levels, Tau protein aggregation, neuronal damage, and the activation of astrocytes and microglia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100.·Brain and Behavior·2025-11-01
The IVW analysis indicated that antithrombotic agents (odds ratio [OR] = 2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-4.34, p = 0.04), HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.07-1.72, p = 0.01), and salicylic acid and derivatives (OR = 2.77, 95% CI = 1.44-5.32, p = 0.002) are a strong risk factor for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB); diuretics (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1-1.27, p = 0.047) and calcium channel blockers (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.04-1.29, p = 0.007) might be a risk factor for vascular dementia; thyroid preparations (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.01-1.06, p = 0.01), diuretics (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.02-1.11, p = 0.004), and immunosuppressants (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.01-1.12, p = 0.001), are a risk factor for frontotemporal dementia; HMG CoA reductase inhibitors is a risk factor for dementia in Alzheimer disease (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.05-1.65, p = 0.01). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Stem cell reports·2021-12-16
The apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) variant is the strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), while the APOE2 allele is protective. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Neurology Genetics·2025-07-21
The APOE (apolipoprotein E) ε4 allele is the strongest known genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD) and for brain amyloidosis, an early marker of disease pathophysiology. 4 key findings →
These findings suggest that sexual differentiation in early life has modest effects on adult development of AD in females, a relationship that appeared stronger in the context of APOE4 . 4 key findings →
Our findings highlight the potential of diverse genomic backgrounds to uncover protective genetic factors, such as the African-specific protective PSG2 locus, found to confer a protective effect among APOE4 carriers. 1 key finding →
In the colocalization of cis-eQTL and GWAS signals for Hispanics, we observed a high posterior probability (posterior prob = 0.9947) for the upstream gene variant rs755980338 on chromosome 11, which locally regulates EHD1 gene (GWAS p-value = 0.009, cis-eQTL p-value = 0.0041). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·JMIR Aging·2025-04-24
Fifty-four participants (~8% response rate) from the MindCrowd web-based cohort (mean age of 62.39 years; 39 females; and 23 APOE ε4 carriers) completed 75 trials of Super G. Results show that Super G performance was significantly associated with each of the targeted risk factors. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Onkologische Welt·2025-11-27
Neben ihrer Wirkung auf Gewichtskontrolle und kardiometabolische Parameter könnten GLP-1RA auch die endokrine Funktion von Adipozyten sowie die chronische Inflammation bei der Adipositas und damit die Entstehung adipositasassoziierter Tumoren modulieren. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Medicine·2026-02-06
The role of noise pollution as a risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD) is unclear, with observational studies yielding conflicting results susceptible to confounding and reverse causality. 3 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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%),
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.
1,038 records (3.6% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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.