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.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

An 88-year-old mentally normal woman (Blessed test score = 27) had very large amounts (397/mm2) of deposits stained by anti-beta A4 serum in the first temporal gyrus. Senile plaques and neurofibrillary tangles were lacking on sections stained with the Bodian's silver method, with anti-tau and anti-paired helical filament (anti-PHF) antibodies. The following beta A4 deposits were found in decreasing order of frequency: diffuse (64.8%), stellate (24.4%), primitive (10.2%), classic (0.6%) plaques. Compact plaques were not observed. Diffuse deposits predominated in layers I, III and IV. On the contrary, the rare classic plaques were located in layers II and III. No amyloid angiopathy was seen with Congo red stain although beta A 4 deposits were seen in vessel walls with immunocytochemistry. These data indicate that severe diffuse beta A4 deposits in the neocortex do not induce dementia. They suggest that the development of senile plaques composed of beta A4 amyloid and of degenerating neurites is not related solely to the density of the diffuse beta A4 deposits. Nor does it depend on the regional susceptibility of the nervous tissue since beta A4 deposits were seen in highly vulnerable cortical areas. Some other, as yet unknown, factors seem necessary. In addition, determination of beta A4 level in the neocortex is not sufficient for the diagnosis of dementia of Alzheimer type.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Delaère, P., Duyckaerts, C., Masters, C., Beyreuther, K., Piette, F., & Hauw, J. J. (1990). Large amounts of neocortical beta A4 deposits without neuritic plaques nor tangles in a psychometrically assessed, non-demented person. Neuroscience letters. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3940(90)90391-l

Vancouver

Delaère P, Duyckaerts C, Masters C, Beyreuther K, Piette F, Hauw JJ. Large amounts of neocortical beta A4 deposits without neuritic plaques nor tangles in a psychometrically assessed, non-demented person. Neuroscience letters. 1990. doi:10.1016/0304-3940(90)90391-l. PMID: 2259457.

BibTeX

@article{delaere1990-2259457,
  author  = {Delaère, P. and Duyckaerts, C. and Masters, C. and Beyreuther, K. and Piette, F. and Hauw, J. J.},
  title   = {{Large amounts of neocortical beta A4 deposits without neuritic plaques nor tangles in a psychometrically assessed, non-demented person}},
  journal = {Neuroscience letters},
  year    = {1990},
  doi     = {10.1016/0304-3940(90)90391-l},
  pmid    = {2259457},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3940(90)90391-l}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 45/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 26 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 45 of 100. Total 45 of 100.26 of the 58 points we could judge = 45 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuroscience letters)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 1990 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 2259457)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 26 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total 45 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Drug development

Also in Drug development

106 studies in the library are filed under Drug development with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Drug development hub.

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →