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.

62/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

The last decade has seen a substantial increase in research focused on the identification, development, and validation of diagnostic and prognostic retinal biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Sensitive retinal biomarkers may be advantageous because they are cost and time efficient, non-invasive, and present a minimal degree of patient risk and a high degree of accessibility. Much of the work in this area thus far has focused on distinguishing between symptomatic AD and/or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cognitively normal older adults. Minimal work has been done on the detection of preclinical AD, the earliest stage of AD pathogenesis characterized by the accumulation of cerebral amyloid absent clinical symptoms of MCI or dementia. The following review examines retinal structural changes, proteinopathies, and vascular alterations that have been proposed as potential AD biomarkers, with a focus on studies examining the earliest stages of disease pathogenesis. In addition, we present recommendations for future research to move beyond the discovery phase and toward validation of AD risk biomarkers that could potentially be used as a first step in a multistep screening process for AD risk detection.

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

APA 7th

Alber, J., Goldfarb, D., Thompson, L. I., Arthur, E., Hernandez, K., Cheng, D., et al. (2020). Developing retinal biomarkers for the earliest stages of Alzheimer's disease: What we know, what we don't, and how to move forward. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12006

Vancouver

Alber J, Goldfarb D, Thompson LI, Arthur E, Hernandez K, Cheng D, et al. Developing retinal biomarkers for the earliest stages of Alzheimer's disease: What we know, what we don't, and how to move forward. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2020. doi:10.1002/alz.12006. PMID: 31914225.

BibTeX

@article{alber2020-31914225,
  author  = {Alber, J. and Goldfarb, D. and Thompson, L. I. and Arthur, E. and Hernandez, K. and Cheng, D. and DeBuc, D. C. and Cordeiro, F. and others},
  title   = {{Developing retinal biomarkers for the earliest stages of Alzheimer's disease: What we know, what we don't, and how to move forward}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1002/alz.12006},
  pmid    = {31914225},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12006}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a pooled review. It combines earlier studies, so it is only as good as the studies it pools. Check how many were included, whether they were similar enough to combine, and whether the authors report inconsistency between them.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Sensitive retinal biomarkers may be advantageous because they are cost and time efficient, non-invasive, and present a minimal degree of patient risk and a high degree of accessibility.
Much of the work in this area thus far has focused on distinguishing between symptomatic AD and/or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cognitively normal older adults.
Minimal work has been done on the detection of preclinical AD, the earliest stage of AD pathogenesis characterized by the accumulation of cerebral amyloid absent clinical symptoms of MCI or dementia.
The following review examines retinal structural changes, proteinopathies, and vascular alterations that have been proposed as potential AD biomarkers, with a focus on studies examining the earliest stages of disease pathogenesis.
In addition, we present recommendations for future research to move beyond the discovery phase and toward validation of AD risk biomarkers that could potentially be used as a first step in a multistep screening process for AD risk detection.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 62/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	12 / 12	A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	2 / 5	2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
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	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here
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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31914225)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	36 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100.
Total	62 / 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 Brain scans and imaging from nearby years

Also in Brain scans and imaging

149 studies in the library are filed under Brain scans and imaging with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Brain scans and imaging hub.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Brain scans and imaging

See all studies in Brain scans and imaging →