Consensus meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias
Bellenguez C, Lambert JC, et al.. Nature Genetics, 2026-06-23
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
This 2026 update is an even larger follow-up to the 2022 Bellenguez GWAS, combining data from nearly 1 million people. It brought the total number of Alzheimer's-linked genetic regions to 91 (16 newly found) and showed that people in the highest tenth of a genetic risk score were roughly twice as likely to show severe tau tangle and amyloid plaque pathology when their brains were examined after death.
Key findings
- 128,681 cases/proxy cases and 849,833 controls analyzed, largest AD/ADRD GWAS meta-analysis to date at publication
- 91 total genetic loci identified, 16 newly discovered, plus 25 new signals within previously known loci
- 56 of the 91 loci were specifically detected in clinically diagnosed AD cases
- Top polygenic-score decile had about twice the risk of severe Braak-stage tau pathology and moderate-to-severe amyloid pathology at autopsy compared with the median-score group
- 18 additional loci (15 novel) flagged as needing further external validation
Why it matters
This 2026 update is an even larger follow-up to the 2022 Bellenguez GWAS, combining data from nearly 1 million people, and brought the total number of Alzheimer's-linked genetic regions to 91 (16 newly found). It showed that people in the highest tenth of a genetic risk score were roughly twice as likely to show severe tau tangle and amyloid plaque pathology when their brains were examined after death.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants978,514
- Effect size91 total risk loci (16 new); top polygenic-score decile ~2x risk of severe tau pathology (Braak stage >IV) and ~2x risk of moderate-to-severe amyloid plaque pathology at autopsy vs median-score group
- Evidence strengthHigh
Limitations
Analysis restricted to European-ancestry participants; some newly identified loci (18 of them) are explicitly flagged by the authors as requiring further external validation before being considered confirmed.
How this study scored 81/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for indexed in PubMed because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 50 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 81 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Nature Genetics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 4 / 4 | 978,514 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 0 / 2 | No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 50 / 62 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 50 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 81 out of 100. |
| Total | 81 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Bellenguez, C., Lambert, J. C., et al. (2026). Consensus meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Nature Genetics.
Vancouver
Bellenguez C, Lambert JC, et al. Consensus meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Nature Genetics. 2026.
BibTeX
@article{bellenguez2026-6dc8c8dc,
author = {Bellenguez, C. and Lambert, J. C. and others},
title = {{Consensus meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias}},
journal = {Nature Genetics},
year = {2026}
}