Endosomal-Lysosomal and Autophagy Pathway in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The endosomal-lysosomal and autophagy (ELA) pathway may be implicated in the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD); however, findings thus far have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To systematically summarize differences in endosomal-lysosomal and autophagy proteins in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of people with AD and healthy controls (HC). METHODS: Studies measuring CSF concentrations of relevant proteins in the ELA pathway in AD and healthy controls were included. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) between AD and healthy controls in CSF concentrations of relevant proteins were meta-analyzed using random-effects models. RESULTS: Of 2,471 unique studies, 43 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Differences in ELA protein levels in the CSF between AD and healthy controls were observed, particularly in lysosomal membrane (LAMP-1: NAD/NHC = 348/381, SMD [95% CI] = 0.599 [0.268, 0.930], I2 = 72.8%; LAMP-2: NAD/NHC = 401/510, SMD [95% CI] = 0.480 [0.134, 0.826], I2 = 78.7%) and intra-lysosomal proteins (GM2A: NAD/NHC = 390/420, SMD [95% CI] = 0.496 [0.039, 0.954], I2 = 87.7%; CTSB: NAD/NHC = 485/443, SMD [95% CI] = 0.201 [0.029, 0.374], I2 = 28.5%; CTSZ: NAD/NHC = 535/820, SMD [95% CI] = -0.160 [-0.305, -0.015], I2 = 24.0%) and in proteins involved in endocytosis (AP2B1:NAD/NHC = 171/205, SMD [95% CI] = 0.513 [0.259, 0.768], I2 = 27.4%; FLOT1: NAD/NHC = 41/45, SMD [95% CI] = -0.489 [-0.919, -0.058], I2 <0.01). LC3B, an autophagy marker, also showed a difference (NAD/NHC = 70/59, SMD [95% CI] = 0.648 [0.180, 1.116], I2 = 38.3%)), but overall there was limited evidence suggesting differences in proteins involved in endosomal function and autophagy. CONCLUSION: Dysregulation of proteins in the ELA pathway may play an important role in AD pathogenesis. Some proteins within this pathway may be potential biomarkers for AD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".