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 301–322 of 322 studies with an author at Johns Hopkins Medicine (US) (page 13 of 13) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 322 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

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.

The amyloid precursor protein (APP) is thought to be processed aberrantly to yield the major constituent of the amyloid plaques observed in the brains of patients with Alzheimer disease and Down syndrome. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The modified questionnaire and interview instruments capture a range of impairment in DS adults, including subthreshold symptomatology, and the instruments provide complementary information relevant to the ascertainment of dementia in DS. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

There is an urgent need for objective markers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD)-related cognitive impairment in people with Down syndrome (DS) to improve diagnosis, monitor disease progression and assess response to disease-modifying therapies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 80 Evidence: moderate

Total tau (T-tau), tau phosphorylated at threonine 181, and β-amyloid 1-42 peptide (Aβ42) were immunoassayed in CSF samples obtained from patients with MCI enrolled in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Home-based medical care (HBMC) delivers physician or advanced practice provider-led medical services for patients in private residences and domiciliary settings (eg, assisted living facilities, group/boarding homes). 2 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

Previous studies have shown that exposure to inhaled anesthetics can cause cognitive dysfunction, suggesting that general anesthesia might be a risk factor for the development of Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

There are significant opportunities for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to play important roles in the primary and secondary prevention of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) beyond current practices. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The NfL assay met analytical criteria, with precision demonstrating coefficients of variation <3% across runs, a lower limit of quantification of 3.10 pg/mL, linearity with <12% deviation, and <10% interference. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

S100 beta protein, a member of a Ca(2+)-binding protein family present primarily in the nervous system, affects the survival and differentiation of both neurons and glia cells. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Chr21 protein-protein interactions: enrichment in products involved in intellectual disabilities, autism and Late Onset Alzheimer Disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. bioRxiv 2019-12-12

Intellectual disability (ID) found in Down syndrome (DS), which is characterized by an extra copy of 234 genes on Chr21 is poorly understood. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Association of plasma biomarkers with longitudinal change in age- and Alzheimer's disease-related brain atrophy patterns

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-17

INTRODUCTIONDetermining whether plasma biomarkers are preferentially associated with Alzheimers disease (AD)-related rather than age-related brain atrophy patterns may clarify their prognostic and diagnostic clinical use. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 818 Evidence: moderate

Study of Ancestry, Health, Environment, and Late-Life Neurodegeneration (SAHEL)

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-24

INTRODUCTIONDementia research in sub-Saharan Africa remains limited despite rapid population aging and substantial ancestral, environmental, and vascular diversity. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 102 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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