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.

Find studies

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.

Down syndrome (DS) is the most common non-lethal genetic condition that affects approximately 1 in 700 births in the United States of America. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Our results demonstrate that gene expression in trisomy 21 affected placentas significantly differs from that of chromosomally normal placentas, and this difference is only partially explained by over-expression of genes from chromosome 21. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

It was suggested that increased Cu-Zn superoxide dismutase (SOD-1) might be involved in the various biological abnormalities found in Down's syndrome (DS) such as premature aging and Alzheimer-type neurological lesions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recently, a frequent prion protein gene (PRNP) polymorphism consisting of a methionine (M) for valine (V) substitution at codon 129 has been associated with cognitive impairment in elderly individuals. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neurodegeneration in fetal development of Down syndrome (DS) patients is proposed to result in apparent neuropathological abnormalities and to contribute to the phenotypic characteristics of mental retardation and premature development of Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were used to compare age-related changes in adaptive functioning in institutionalized adults with and without Down syndrome. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Plasma amyloid beta protein 1-40 (Abeta40) and Abeta42 levels were quantitated from 28 young Down syndrome (DS) (20-40 years old), 28 age-matched controls, 32 old DS (41-65 years old) and 32 age-matched controls in a sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

We immunohistochemically studied the expression of beta-amyloid precursor protein (APP), Abeta40, Abeta42, and Abeta43 in the frontal lobes of 20 Down syndrome (DS) patients and 13 controls. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neuropathology of Down syndrome and Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. American journal of medical genetics. Supplement 1990-01-01

Patients with Down syndrome (DS) over 40 years of age, prematurely and consistently develop neurofibrillary tangles (NFT), intracytoplasmic inclusions of highly insoluble straight or paired helical 12-16 nm filaments, and senile plaques (SP) composed of abnormal neurites surrounding a core of beta amyloid. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Our findings suggest that, with respect to this putative marker of central cholinergic activity, dementia in aging DS shares pathophysiological similarities to AD in the general population. 2 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

The cognitive deficits in Down syndrome (DS) are attributed to an excessive hippocampal inhibition, which obstructs neuronal plasticity and normal learning and memory, a view which is largely based on studies of Ts65Dn mice, the best characterized mouse model of DS. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Individual differences in the development of neurofibrillary changes were examined in eight cortical regions in the brains of 43 subjects with Down syndrome (DS; age range, 15-69 years) using sections stained with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) tau-1 and 3-39. 2 key findings →

Participants: 43 Evidence: low

Thyroid hormone abnormalities are strongly associated with Down Syndrome (DS) with elevated thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels as the most consistent finding. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome, DS) is the most common genetic cause of mental retardation, resulting from triplication of the whole or distal part of human chromosome 21. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Frequencies of chromatid aberrations in response to G2-phase x-irradiation were compared in PHA-stimulated blood lymphocytes from healthy control subjects, Down syndrome (DS) patients, and Alzheimer disease (AD) patients. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study supports the need for formal reliability and validity studies of TM preparatory to the consideration of this modality for use in clinical trials for AD. 1 key finding →

Participants: 90 Evidence: low

We evaluated the allele (and genotype frequencies in 60 Down syndrome (DS), 25 mothers and 57 controls from Sicily and its relation with mental retardation. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 536 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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