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 41 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

The impact of Alzheimer's disease (AD) on the pupillary light response (PLR) is controversial, being dependent on the stage of the disease and on the experimental pupillometric protocols. The main hypothesis driving pupillometry research in AD is based on the concept that the AD-related neurodegeneration affects both the parasympathetic and the sympathetic arms of the PLR (cholinergic and noradrenergic theory), combined with additional alterations of the afferent limb, involving the melanopsin expressing retinal ganglion cells (mRGCs), subserving the PLR. Only a few studies have evaluated the value of pupillometry as a potential biomarker in AD, providing various results compatible with parasympathetic dysfunction, displaying increased latency of pupillary constriction to light, decreased constriction amplitude, faster redilation after light offset, decreased maximum velocity of constriction (MCV) and maximum constriction acceleration (MCA) compared to controls. Decreased MCV and MCA appeared to be the most accurate of all PLR parameters allowing differentiation between AD and healthy controls while increased post-illumination pupillary response was the most consistent feature, however, these results could not be replicated by more recent studies, focusing on early and pre-clinical stages of the disease. Whether static or dynamic pupillometry yields useful biomarkers for AD screening or diagnosis remains unclear. In this review, we synopsize the current knowledge on pupillometric features in AD and other neurodegenerative diseases, and discuss potential roles of pupillometry in AD detection, diagnosis and monitoring, alone or in combination with additional biomarkers.

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

APA 7th

Chougule, P. S., Najjar, R. P., Finkelstein, M. T., Kandiah, N., & Milea, D. (2019). Light-Induced Pupillary Responses in Alzheimer's Disease. Frontiers in neurology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00360

Vancouver

Chougule PS, Najjar RP, Finkelstein MT, Kandiah N, Milea D. Light-Induced Pupillary Responses in Alzheimer's Disease. Frontiers in neurology. 2019. doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.00360. PMID: 31031692.

BibTeX

@article{chougule2019-31031692,
  author  = {Chougule, P. S. and Najjar, R. P. and Finkelstein, M. T. and Kandiah, N. and Milea, D.},
  title   = {{Light-Induced Pupillary Responses in Alzheimer's Disease}},
  journal = {Frontiers in neurology},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.3389/fneur.2019.00360},
  pmid    = {31031692},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00360}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 41/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 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 2 of 2. 24 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 41 of 100. Total 41 of 100.24 of the 58 points we could judge = 41 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in neurology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 2019 — 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)
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 31031692)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 24 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total 41 / 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.

Related studies in Brain scans and imaging

Also in Brain scans and imaging

156 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 →