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

Showing 1–25 of 80 studies (page 1 of 4) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 80 studies tagged dosage — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

We used within-group locally estimated scatterplot smoothing models to compare the trajectory of biomarker changes with age in females versus males, as well as by apolipoprotein ɛ4 carriership. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 628 Evidence: low

We comprehensively estimated the risk of multiple morbidity across the lifespan in people with Down syndrome compared with the general population and controls with other forms of intellectual disability. 4 key findings →

Participants: 204 Evidence: moderate

Further detailed investigations into the development and treatment of comorbidities across the lifespan are needed for a successful longitudinal approach to healthcare in people with Down syndrome. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In the United States, estimates indicate there are between 250,000 and 400,000 individuals with Down syndrome (DS), and nearly all will develop Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology starting in their 30s. With the current lifespan being 55 to 60 years, approximately 70% will develop dementia, and if their life expectancy continues to increase, the number of individuals developing AD will concomitantly increase. 4 key findings →

Participants: 400,000 Evidence: low

Atypical aging in Down syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Developmental disabilities research reviews 2013-01-01

At present, there may be over 210,000 people with Down syndrome (DS) over the age of 55 in the United States (US) who have significant needs for augmented services due to circumstances related to ordinary and/or pathological aging. 1 key finding →

Participants: 210,000 Evidence: low

While post mortem studies have identified the major cell types and functional systems affected in Alzheimer's disease (AD) the initial sites and molecular characteristics of pathology are still unclear. 1 key finding →

Participants: 56 Evidence: low

Evolution of neuroinflammation across the lifespan of individuals with Down syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2020-12-01

Epidemiological and experimental studies suggest that a disease-aggravating neuroinflammatory process is present at preclinical stages of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Down syndrome (DS), trisomy of human chromosome 21 (HSA21), is characterized by lifelong cognitive impairments and the development of the neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 29 Evidence: low

Children with Down syndrome (DS) experience congenital and functional medical issues that predispose them to obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). 4 key findings →

Participants: 177 Evidence: low

The form and distribution of senile plaques (SP) and neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) has been examined in the brains of 13 patients with Down's syndrome (DS), aged less than or equal to 50 years, using immunocytochemical and silver staining procedures. 5 key findings →

Participants: 13 Evidence: low

Overexpression of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) gene on chromosome 21 in Down syndrome (DS) has been linked to increased brain amyloid levels and early-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

7 of the 80 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 7. The same 7 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 27,380 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