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 101–125 of 287 studies (page 5 of 12) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 287 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 287 studies tagged dendritic — 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.

P021 treatment during early development prevented cognitive impairment and increased expressions of pCREB and BDNF that activated downstream various signaling cascades such as PLC/PKC, MEK/ERK and PI3K/Akt, and ameliorated synaptic protein deficit in 4-month-old 3xTg-AD mice. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Long-lasting changes of synaptic efficacy are largely mediated by activity-induced gene transcription and are essential for neuronal plasticity and memory. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In BriefIn the search for biomarkers of synapse loss associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD), we used shotgun proteomics to identify a panel of 9 synaptic proteins detectable in human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).Expression at the human synapse was verified using super resolution microscopy. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Impaired adult neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus of a triple transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. PloS one 2008-08-13

However, male 3xTg-AD mice demonstrated a further reduction in the production of new neurones from 9 months of age (73% decrease) and a complete depletion at 12 months, when compared to controls. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

An early substantial loss of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons (BFCNs) is a constant feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and is associated with deficits in spatial learning and memory. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Impaired synaptic plasticity and learning in aged amyloid precursor protein transgenic mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 1999-03-01

We investigated synaptic communication and plasticity in hippocampal slices from mice overexpressing mutated 695-amino-acid human amyloid precursor protein (APP695SWE), which show behavioral and histopathological abnormalities simulating Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Aggregation of amyloid-β (Aβ) as toxic oligomers and amyloid plaques within the brain appears to be the pathogenic event that initiates Alzheimer's disease (AD) lesions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Nerve growth factor: from the early discoveries to the potential clinical use

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Journal of translational medicine 2012-11-29

The physiological role of the neurotrophin nerve growth factor (NGF) has been characterized, since its discovery in the 1950s, first in the sensory and autonomic nervous system, then in central nervous, endocrine and immune systems. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

A Comprehensive Behavioral Test Battery to Assess Learning and Memory in 129S6/Tg2576 Mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. PloS one 2016-01-25

Transgenic Tg2576 mice overexpressing human amyloid precursor protein (hAPP) are a widely used Alzheimer's disease (AD) mouse model to evaluate treatment effects on amyloid beta (Aβ) pathology and cognition. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by a progressive deterioration of cognitive abilities, accumulation of the amyloid-beta-peptide (Abeta) and synaptic alterations. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dendritic spine pathology in neuropsychiatric disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 2011-03-01

Substantial progress has been made toward understanding the genetic architecture, cellular substrates, brain circuits and endophenotypic profiles of neuropsychiatric disorders, including autism spectrum disorders (ASD), schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our data suggest that inhibition of mTOR by rapamycin, an intervention that extends lifespan in mice, can slow or block AD progression in a transgenic mouse model of the disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 287 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 10. The same 10 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 (3.7% 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