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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 60 studies in Genetics published 2017 (page 1 of 3) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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; 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.

UK Biobank: opportunities for cardiovascular research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. European Heart Journal 2017-04-24

The need for large sample sizes has led to collaborative efforts, such as the Prospective Studies Collaboration (an individual participant meta-analysis of data from 61 studies and more than a million participants11) that has demonstrated conclusively that a continuous increase in blood pressure corresponds with an increased risk of vascular death across all age groups (see Figure 1 that illustrates the importance of a large sample size (about 500 000 participants) for detecting this association).12 Sample size is also of particular importance in the current era of genome-wide association studies, where many investigations are aiming to detect either small effects from common variants or large effects from rare variants.13 Absolute risk of ischaemic heart disease mortality by usual systolic blood pressure and age at risk in 5000, 50 000, and 500 000 participants. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,200 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Association Between Midlife Vascular Risk Factors and Estimated Brain Amyloid Deposition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. JAMA 2017-04-01

An increasing number of midlife vascular risk factors was significantly associated with elevated amyloid SUVR; this association was not significant for late-life risk factors. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Apolipoprotein E Genotype and Sex Risk Factors for Alzheimer Disease: A Meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-10-01

Contrary to long-standing views, men and women with the APOE ε3/ε4 genotype have nearly the same odds of developing AD from age 55 to 85 years, but women have an increased risk at younger ages. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Genome-wide association study identifies four novel loci associated with Alzheimer's endophenotypes and disease modifiers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2017-02-28

More than 20 genetic loci have been associated with risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD), but reported genome-wide significant loci do not account for all the estimated heritability and provide little information about underlying biological mechanisms. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 3,146 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Differential associations of plasma lipids with incident dementia and dementia subtypes in the 3C Study: A longitudinal, population-based prospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. PLoS medicine 2017-03-28

Fasting lipid fractions (triglycerides [TGs], high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], total cholesterol [TC]) were studied as continuous variables, and results are reported per SD increase of each lipid fraction. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,294 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Fine-mapping of the human leukocyte antigen locus as a risk factor for Alzheimer disease: A case-control study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. PLoS medicine 2017-03-28

Secondary analysis suggested that this effect may be driven primarily by individuals who are negative for the established AD genetic risk factor, apolipoprotein E (APOE) ɛ4. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 346 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Odor identification as a biomarker of preclinical AD in older adults at risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2017-06-28

These findings from healthy high-risk older individuals suggest that OI reflects degree of preclinical AD pathology, while its relationships with age and cognition result from the association of these latter variables with such pathology. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 101 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association Between Mentally Stimulating Activities in Late Life and the Outcome of Incident Mild Cognitive Impairment, With an Analysis of the APOE ε4 Genotype

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-03-01

Cognitively normal elderly individuals who engage in specific mentally stimulating activities even in late life have a decreased risk of incident MCI. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 973 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

TOMM40'523 variant and cognitive decline in older persons with APOE ε3/3 genotype

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2017-01-20

Our data reveal an association of APOE ε3/3- TOMM40 '523 haplotypes with cognitive decline in community-based older persons such that the S/S poly-T genotype is related to faster cognitive decline, primarily in the domains of episodic and semantic memory. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association of Brain Amyloid-β With Slow Gait in Elderly Individuals Without Dementia: Influence of Cognition and Apolipoprotein E ε4 Genotype

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-01-01

Among the 183 study participants, mean (SD) age was 85.5 (3) years, 76 were women (41.5%), and 177 were white (96.7%). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 183 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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 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.

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

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed