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.

36/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Plain-language summary

These last two decades have seen an explosion of clinical and epidemiological research, and basic research devoted to envisage the influence of gender and hormonal fluctuations in the retina/ocular diseases. Particular attention has been paid to age-related disorders because of the overlap of endocrine and neuronal dysfunction with aging. Hormonal withdrawal has been considered among risk factors for diseases such as glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular disease (AMD), as well as, for Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, or other neurodegenerative disorders. Sex hormones and aging have been also suggested to drive the incidence of ocular surface diseases such as dry eye and cataract. Hormone therapy has been approached in several clinical trials. The discovery that the retina is another CNS tissue synthesizing neurosteroids, among which neuroactive steroids, has favored these studies. However, the puzzling data emerged from clinical, epidemiological and experimental studies have added several dimensions of complexity; the current landscape is inherently limited to the weak information on the influence and interdependence of endocrine, paracrine and autocrine regulation in the retina, but also in the brain. Focusing on the estrogenic retina, we here review our knowledge on local 17β-oestradiol (E2) synthesis from cholesterol-based neurosteroidogenic path and testosterone aromatization, and presence of estrogen receptors (ERα and ERβ). The first cholesterol-limiting step and the final aromatase-limiting step are discussed as possible check-points of retinal functional/dysfunctional E2. Possible E2 neuroprotection is commented as a group of experimental evidence on excitotoxic and oxidative retinal paradigms, and models of retinal neurodegenerative diseases, such as glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy and AMD. These findings may provide a framework to support clinical studies, although further basic research is needed.

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

APA 7th

Cascio, C., Deidda, I., Russo, D., & Guarneri, P. (2015). The estrogenic retina: The potential contribution to healthy aging and age-related neurodegenerative diseases of the retina. Steroids. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.steroids.2015.08.002

Vancouver

Cascio C, Deidda I, Russo D, Guarneri P. The estrogenic retina: The potential contribution to healthy aging and age-related neurodegenerative diseases of the retina. Steroids. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.steroids.2015.08.002. PMID: 26265586.

BibTeX

@article{cascio2015-26265586,
  author  = {Cascio, C. and Deidda, I. and Russo, D. and Guarneri, P.},
  title   = {{The estrogenic retina: The potential contribution to healthy aging and age-related neurodegenerative diseases of the retina}},
  journal = {Steroids},
  year    = {2015},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.steroids.2015.08.002},
  pmid    = {26265586},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.steroids.2015.08.002}
}

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.

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

These findings may provide a framework to support clinical studies, although further basic research is needed.

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

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 36/100

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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Steroids)
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	1 / 5	2015 — within 20 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 26265586)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	21 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100.
Total	36 / 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 “age-related-neurodegenerative”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “age-related-neurodegenerative”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 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 →