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 1–25 of 287 studies (page 1 of 12) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 287 studies tagged synaptic — 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.

We discovered that dendritic spine elimination-induced either artificially or in Aβ models-triggers a two-stage compensatory response: rapid enlargement of remaining spines followed by delayed spine regeneration. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In APPL/S mice, BD10-2 treatment improved memory and LTP deficits. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mutations in the beta-amyloid precursor protein are strongly associated with some cases of familial Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Synaptic dysfunction is a major driver of cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet its extent and molecular basis in the retina remain poorly defined. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cdc42GAP deficiency contributes to the Alzheimer's disease phenotype

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2023-10-03

Alzheimer's disease, the most common cause of dementia, is a chronic degenerative disease with typical pathological features of extracellular senile plaques and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles and a significant decrease in the density of neuronal dendritic spines. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

TDP-43 proteinopathy is linked to neurodegenerative diseases that feature synaptic loss in the cortex and hippocampus, although it remains unclear how TDP-43 regulates mature synapses. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Lateral ventricle administration, but not caudal vein injection of BMSC-exos improved AD-like behaviors in the STZ-injected mouse model, as indicated by the increased number of rearing, increased frequency to the central area, and increased duration and distance traveled in the central area in the OFT, and improved preference index of the novel object in the NOR. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The data revealed that 5XFAD mice that received hMSC-EV treatment behaved significantly better in cognitive tests than saline treated 5XFAD mice, with no significant change between EV-treated 5XFAD mice and NT mice. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

These results suggest that the targeted methylation of APP via dCas9-Dnmt3a treatment can be a potential therapeutic strategy for AD. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The ability to investigate therapeutic interventions in animal models of neurodegenerative diseases depends on extensive characterization of the model(s) being used. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We identify Clu as an astrocyte-derived synaptogenic and anti-amyloid factor; the combination of these activities may influence the progression of late-onset AD. 2 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 27,380 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