MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116735112 · doi:10.33137/jns.v4i1.43407

Exploring Plasticity Mechanisms in Learning and Memory: An Insight into Alzheimer’s Disease

2025· article· W7116735112 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Maheen Juweria, Nuzhat Azim, Quynh Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueUTSC s Journal of Natural Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomeostatic plasticityMetaplasticityHebbian theorySynaptic plasticityLong-term potentiationNeuroplasticityDevelopmental plasticitySynaptic scalingNonsynaptic plasticity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuroplasticity is the brain’s ability to change and adapt to promote learning and memory. The capacity for change is reflected in how synaptic plasticity mechanisms - Hebbian and homeostatic - contribute to Alzheimer's Disease (AD). While Hebbian plasticity strengthens the connections between neurons that fire together, homeostatic plasticity balances neural activity and maintains network stability. Although these two forms of plasticity function differently, we hypothesize that both promote neural adaptations in response to environmental factors. In the case of neural activity disruption, cognitive decline and memory deficits occur as observed in Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). In this review, we first synthesize theoretical and empirical work on how homeostatic plasticity and Hebbian learning contribute to learning and memory. Considering the roles of synaptic long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD), we also describe alterations in glutamatergic and cholinergic neurotransmission that lead to impaired memory and learning. Understanding these processes offers potential therapeutic targets for improving synaptic function and mitigating cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUTSC s Journal of Natural SciencesSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207