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.

41/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Plain-language summary

Retinal imaging technology is rapidly advancing and can provide ever-increasing amounts of information about the structure, function and molecular composition of retinal tissue in humans in vivo. Most importantly, this information can be obtained rapidly, non-invasively and in many cases using Food and Drug Administration-approved devices that are commercially available. Technologies such as optical coherence tomography have dramatically changed our understanding of retinal disease and in many cases have significantly improved their clinical management. Since the retina is an extension of the brain and shares a common embryological origin with the central nervous system, there has also been intense interest in leveraging the expanding armamentarium of retinal imaging technology to understand, diagnose and monitor neurological diseases. This is particularly appealing because of the high spatial resolution, relatively low-cost and wide availability of retinal imaging modalities such as fundus photography or OCT compared to brain imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging or positron emission tomography. The purpose of this article is to review and synthesize current research about retinal imaging in neurodegenerative disease by providing examples from the literature and elaborating on limitations, challenges and future directions. We begin by providing a general background of the most relevant retinal imaging modalities to ensure that the reader has a foundation on which to understand the clinical studies that are subsequently discussed. We then review the application and results of retinal imaging methodologies to several prevalent neurodegenerative diseases where extensive work has been done including sporadic late onset Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease and Huntington's Disease. We also discuss Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer's Disease and cerebrovascular small vessel disease, where the application of retinal imaging holds promise but data is currently scarce. Although cerebrovascular disease is not generally considered a neurodegenerative process, it is both a confounder and contributor to neurodegenerative disease processes that requires more attention. Finally, we discuss ongoing efforts to overcome the limitations in the field and unmet clinical and scientific needs.

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

APA 7th

Kashani, A. H., Asanad, S., Chan, J. W., Singer, M. B., Zhang, J., Sharifi, M., et al. (2021). Past, present and future role of retinal imaging in neurodegenerative disease. Progress in retinal and eye research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2020.100938

Vancouver

Kashani AH, Asanad S, Chan JW, Singer MB, Zhang J, Sharifi M, et al. Past, present and future role of retinal imaging in neurodegenerative disease. Progress in retinal and eye research. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2020.100938. PMID: 33460813.

BibTeX

@article{kashani2021-33460813,
  author  = {Kashani, Amir H and Asanad, Samuel and Chan, Jane W and Singer, Maxwell B and Zhang, Jiong and Sharifi, Mona and Khansari, Maziyar M and Abdolahi, Farzan and others},
  title   = {{Past, present and future role of retinal imaging in neurodegenerative disease}},
  journal = {Progress in retinal and eye research},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.preteyeres.2020.100938},
  pmid    = {33460813},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2020.100938}
}

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 narrative review. It summarises a field without a fixed search method, so it shows how authors read the evidence rather than measuring it. Use it to find the primary studies, not as a result in itself.
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

Technologies such as optical coherence tomography have dramatically changed our understanding of retinal disease and in many cases have significantly improved their clinical management.
This is particularly appealing because of the high spatial resolution, relatively low-cost and wide availability of retinal imaging modalities such as fundus photography or OCT compared to brain imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging or positron emission tomography.
We then review the application and results of retinal imaging methodologies to several prevalent neurodegenerative diseases where extensive work has been done including sporadic late onset Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease and Huntington's Disease.

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

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 41/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Progress in retinal and eye research)
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	3 / 5	2021 — within 6 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	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33460813)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	23 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 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.

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 tagged “optical”

151 studies in the library carry the topic tag “optical”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 151 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Brain scans and imaging

See all studies in Brain scans and imaging →