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 1–24 of 24 studies by Lott IT · 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.

Subjects

Other 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.

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 and dementia: a randomized, controlled trial of antioxidant supplementation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. American journal of medical genetics. Part A 2011-07-07

Individuals with Down syndrome over age 40 years are at risk for developing dementia of the Alzheimer type and have evidence for chronic oxidative stress. 4 key findings →

Participants: 53 Evidence: high

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

Association between frontal cortex oxidative damage and beta-amyloid as a function of age in Down syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Biochimica et biophysica acta 2011-10-08

Down syndrome (DS) is the most common genetic cause of intellectual disability in children, and the number of adults with DS reaching old age is increasing. 4 key findings →

Participants: 29 Evidence: low

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

Parallel compensatory and pathological events associated with tau pathology in middle aged individuals with Down syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology 2003-09-01

Aged individuals with Down syndrome (DS) develop senile plaques and neurofibrillary tangles consistent with Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Down syndrome: age-dependence of PiB binding in postmortem frontal cortex across the lifespan

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2017-03-14

Beta-amyloid (Aβ) deposition in brain accumulates as a function of age in people with Down syndrome (DS) with subsequent development into Alzheimer disease neuropathology, typically by 40 years of age. 3 key findings →

Participants: 25 Evidence: low

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

Possible compensatory events in adult Down syndrome brain prior to the development of Alzheimer disease neuropathology: targets for nonpharmacological intervention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2007-03-01

Adults with Down syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology progressively with age but clinical signs of dementia are delayed by at least 10 years after the first signs of disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Research attitudes in families of individuals with Down syndrome: importance for clinical trials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2022-11-23

This is one of the first formal studies to evaluate research attitudes among relatives of individuals with DS and shows the feasibility of using this approach to answer important questions that will guide trialists developing treatments for AD in DS. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

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

Down syndrome and Alzheimer's disease: a link between development and aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Mental retardation and developmental disabilities research reviews 2001-01-01

A subset of aged individuals with Down syndrome (DS) exhibits the clinical features of Alzheimer's disease (AD) but our ability to detect dementia in this population is hampered by developmental differences as well as the sensitivity of existing test tools. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Telemedicine, dementia and Down syndrome: implications for Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2006-07-01

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Alzheimer's disease in Down syndrome: neurobiology and risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Mental retardation and developmental disabilities research reviews 2007-01-01

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Cognitive Profiles on the Severe Impairment Battery Are Similar in Alzheimer Disease and Down Syndrome With Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2016-07-01

Previous research has revealed similarities in the neuropathology, clinical presentation, and risk factors between persons with Alzheimer disease from the general population (GP-AD) and those with Down syndrome (DS-AD). 3 key findings →

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