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 52 out of 100. Risk genes beyond APOE

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Mice that overexpress the human mutant amyloid precursor protein (hAPP) show learning deficits, but the apparent lack of a relationship between these deficits and the progressive beta-amyloid plaque formation that the hAPP mice display is puzzling. In the water maze, hAPP mice are impaired before and after amyloid plaque deposition. Here we show, using a new water-maze training protocol, that PDAPP mice also exhibit a separate age-related deficit in learning a series of spatial locations. This impairment correlates with beta-amyloid plaque burden and is shown in both cross-sectional and longitudinal experimental designs. Cued navigation and object-recognition memory are normal. These findings indicate that A beta overexpression and/or A beta plaques are associated with disturbed cognitive function and, importantly, suggest that some but not all forms of learning and memory are suitable behavioural assays of the progressive cognitive deficits associated with Alzheimer's-disease-type pathologies.

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

APA 7th

Chen, G., Chen, K. S., Knox, J., Inglis, J., Bernard, A., Martin, S. J., et al. (2000). A learning deficit related to age and beta-amyloid plaques in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/35050103

Vancouver

Chen G, Chen KS, Knox J, Inglis J, Bernard A, Martin SJ, et al. A learning deficit related to age and beta-amyloid plaques in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Nature. 2000. doi:10.1038/35050103. PMID: 11140684.

BibTeX

@article{chen2000-11140684,
  author  = {Chen, G. and Chen, K. S. and Knox, J. and Inglis, J. and Bernard, A. and Martin, S. J. and Justice, A. and McConlogue, L. and others},
  title   = {{A learning deficit related to age and beta-amyloid plaques in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Nature},
  year    = {2000},
  doi     = {10.1038/35050103},
  pmid    = {11140684},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1038/35050103}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 52/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 10 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / 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; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 30 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 52 of 100. Total 52 of 100.30 of the 58 points we could judge = 52 of 100

Published in a top-tier journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and randomised / 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 10 / 10 Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (Nature)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 4 / 12 A snapshot of people at one point in time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2000 — 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 Laboratory or animal study (title names “mouse”) — scores zero
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation 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
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 11140684)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 30 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100.
Total 52 / 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 Risk genes beyond APOE

Also tagged “plaques”

5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “plaques”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Risk genes beyond APOE

See all studies in Risk genes beyond APOE →