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 51–75 of 80 studies (page 3 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.

Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) commonly possess unique neurocognitive and neurobehavioral profiles that emerge within specific developmental periods. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A human stem cell model of early Alzheimer's disease pathology in Down syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Science translational medicine 2012-02-15

Human cellular models of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis would enable the investigation of candidate pathogenic mechanisms in AD and the testing and developing of new therapeutic strategies. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) brains display A beta (Abeta) plaques, inflammatory changes and neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Altered neuronal endocytosis is the earliest known pathology in sporadic Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Down syndrome (DS) brain and has been linked to increased Abeta production. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Down syndrome (DS) is characterized by increased mortality rates, both during early and later stages of life, and age-specific mortality risk remains higher in adults with DS compared with the overall population of people with mental retardation and with typically developing populations. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The presence of the neuropathological alterations of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in essentially all older Down syndrome (DS) patients suggests that the examination of younger DS patients may clarify the early pathological progression of AD. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Most individuals with Down Syndrome (DS) show an early-onset of Alzheimer's disease (AD), which potentially results from the presence of an extra copy of a segment of chromosome 21. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Ts65Dn is a mouse model of Down syndrome: a syndrome that results from chromosome (Chr) 21 trisomy and is associated with congenital defects, cognitive impairment, and ultimately Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Function and regulation of Dyrk1A: towards understanding Down syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS 2009-08-14

Down syndrome (DS) is associated with a variety of symptoms, such as incapacitating mental retardation and neurodegeneration (i.e., Alzheimer's disease), that prevent patients from leading fully independent lives. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The endosome/lysosome pathway is disrupted early in the course of both Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Down syndrome (DS); however, it is not clear how dysfunction in this pathway influences the development of these diseases. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The previously reported high risk levels for dementia among people with Down syndrome was confirmed in these data as was the value of the instruments utilised in tracking decline and helping to confirm diagnosis even in persons with severe intellectual disability. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Amyloid beta protein (Abeta), the major component of neuritic plaques in Alzheimer's disease (AD), is derived from APP by sequential cleavages of beta- and gamma-secretases. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Similar to the state of the broader intellectual disabilities field, many gaps exist in the research and treatment of mental health concerns in people with Down syndrome. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In addition to intellectual disability, individuals with Down syndrome (DS) exhibit dementia by the third or fourth decade of life, due to the early onset of neuropathological changes typical of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

In addition to mental retardation, individuals with Down syndrome (DS) also develop the neuropathological changes typical of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the majority of these individuals exhibit dementia. 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