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.

27/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Down syndrome and Alzheimer's

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

This study sought to test the hypothesis that adults with Down Syndrome may age faster than the general population by comparing the rate of increase in their mortality with age with that of the general population by the method originally described by Gompertz. The differences were not statistically significant. There is a striking difference in morbidity, the Down's adults being highly vulnerable. Alzheimer populations do not lend themselves readily to this type of analysis.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Low

This study compared mortality rates with age in adults with Down syndrome and the general population and found no statistically significant difference. It reports no treatment, cure or prevention effect for Alzheimer's disease.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

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

APA 7th

Sinex, F. M. (1986). The mortality of adults with Down syndrome as a function of age. Mechanisms of ageing and development. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-6374(86)90088-6

Vancouver

Sinex FM. The mortality of adults with Down syndrome as a function of age. Mechanisms of ageing and development. 1986. doi:10.1016/0047-6374(86)90088-6. PMID: 2948082.

BibTeX

@article{sinex1986-2948082,
  author  = {Sinex, F. M.},
  title   = {{The mortality of adults with Down syndrome as a function of age}},
  journal = {Mechanisms of ageing and development},
  year    = {1986},
  doi     = {10.1016/0047-6374(86)90088-6},
  pmid    = {2948082},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-6374(86)90088-6}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

The differences were not statistically significant.

Why it matters

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 27/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Mechanisms of ageing and development)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Mechanisms of Ageing and Development: journal h-index 172 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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	1986 — 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	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	1 / 7	Cited 2 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.0 citations a year over 42 year(s) since 1986
Impact for its field and year	1 / 6	Cited 0.5× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	0 / 4	Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	1 / 4	Last-listed author F. Marott Sinex: h-index 18 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	Boston University: institution h-index 1,456 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	0 / 3	OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 2948082)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	27 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

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

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Down syndrome and Alzheimer's from nearby years

Also tagged “down”

527 studies in the library carry the topic tag “down”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 527 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Down syndrome and Alzheimer's

See all studies in Down syndrome and Alzheimer's →