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

29,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1,826–1,850 of 1,987 studies in Genetics (page 74 of 80) · 29,380 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; 14,855 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.

The three new pathways leading to Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Neuropathology and applied neurobiology 2011-06-01

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) promise a significant impact on the understanding of late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) as the genetic components have been estimated to account for 60-80% of the disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Genetic factors in cerebral small vessel disease and their impact on stroke and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 2016-01-01

Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) is among the most frequent causes of both stroke and dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

RNA-binding proteins, neural development and the addictions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Genes, brain, and behavior 2016-01-01

Transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression defines the neurobiological mechanisms that bridge genetic and environmental risk factors with neurobehavioral dysfunction underlying the addictions. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Increasing power for voxel-wise genome-wide association studies: the random field theory, least square kernel machines and fast permutation procedures

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. NeuroImage 2012-07-16

Imaging traits are thought to have more direct links to genetic variation than diagnostic measures based on cognitive or clinical assessments and provide a powerful substrate to examine the influence of genetics on human brains. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Molecular genetics of addiction and related heritable phenotypes: genome-wide association approaches identify "connectivity constellation" and drug target genes with pleiotropic effects

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2008-10-01

Genome-wide association (GWA) can elucidate molecular genetic bases for human individual differences in complex phenotypes that include vulnerability to addiction. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Epigenetic studies in Alzheimer's disease: current findings, caveats, and considerations for future studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics 2013-09-13

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a sporadic, chronic neurodegenerative disease, usually occurring late in life. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Functional screening of Alzheimer pathology genome-wide association signals in Drosophila

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. American journal of human genetics 2011-02-03

We have leveraged a Drosophila model relevant to Alzheimer disease (AD) for functional screening of findings from a genome-wide scan for loci associated with a quantitative measure of AD pathology in humans. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Using an Alzheimer Disease Polygenic Risk Score to Predict Memory Decline in Black and White Americans Over 14 Years of Follow-up

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2016-07-01

Evidence on whether genetic predictors of Alzheimer disease (AD) also predict memory decline is inconsistent, and limited data are available for African ancestry populations. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Polymorphisms of CR1, CLU and PICALM confer susceptibility of Alzheimer's disease in a southern Chinese population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2011-10-19

In this case-controlled study, we tested susceptible genetic variants for Alzheimer's disease (AD) in CR1, CLU and PICALM from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in a southern Chinese population. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Cerebrovascular smooth muscle cells internalize Alzheimer amyloid beta protein via a lipoprotein pathway: implications for cerebral amyloid angiopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology 1997-08-01

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 →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

↑ 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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.

1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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