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 51–75 of 152 studies (page 3 of 7) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 152 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 152 studies tagged retinal — 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.

In the last 20 years, research focused on developing retinal imaging as a source of potential biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases, has increased significantly. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The role of optical coherence tomography in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. International journal of retina and vitreous 2016-10-17

The purpose of this article is to review the main findings on OCT in AD patients, to discuss the role of this important diagnostic tool in these patients and how OCT technology may be useful in understanding morphological retinal changes in AD. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Our study confirms some other studies in showing that in AD patients there is a reduction of parapapillary and macular RNFL thickness and macular volume as measured by OCT. 5 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

Ocular indicators of Alzheimer's: exploring disease in the retina

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2016-09-19

Although historically perceived as a disorder confined to the brain, our understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has expanded to include extra-cerebral manifestation, with mounting evidence of abnormalities in the eye. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The aim of this study was to investigate retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) without visual impairment using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and to compare the results with healthy controls. 3 key findings →

Participants: 80 Evidence: low

OCTA: Essential or Gimmick?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Ophthalmology and therapy 2024-07-06

This commentary article delves into the transformative role of optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) in diagnosing and managing a wide array of eye conditions, including diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration, retinal vein occlusions, and white dot syndromes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by amyloid beta (Aβ)-containing extracellular plaques and tau-containing intracellular neurofibrillary tangles. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

While Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases have traditionally been viewed as brain disorders, there is growing evidence indicating their manifestation in the eyes as well. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

These results show that different isoforms of Aβ can be detected in the human retina and moreover support the growing number of studies indicating that AD-related pathological changes occurring in the brain could be reflected in the retina. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dll4 signalling through Notch1 regulates formation of tip cells during angiogenesis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Nature 2007-01-28

In sprouting angiogenesis, specialized endothelial tip cells lead the outgrowth of blood-vessel sprouts towards gradients of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A. VEGF-A is also essential for the induction of endothelial tip cells, but it is not known how single tip cells are selected to lead each vessel sprout, and how tip-cell numbers are determined. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

8 of the 152 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 8. The same 8 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