Assessment of brain-derived extracellular vesicle enrichment for blood biomarker analysis in age-related neurodegenerative diseases: An international overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Brain-derived extracellular vesicles (BEVs) in blood allows for minimally- invasive investigations of CNS-specific markers of age-related neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs). Polymer-based EV- and immunoprecipitation (IP)-based BEV-enrichment protocols from blood have gained popularity. We systematically investigated protocol consistency across studies, and determined CNS-specificity of proteins associated with these protocols. METHODS: NDD articles investigating BEVs in blood using polymer-based and/or IP-based BEV enrichment protocols were systematically identified, and protocols compared. Proteins used for BEV-enrichment and/or post-enrichment were assessed for CNS- and brain-cell-type- specificity; extracellular domains (ECD+); and presence in EV-databases. RESULTS: 82.1% of studies used polymer-based (ExoQuick) EV-enrichment, and 92.3% used L1CAM for IP-based BEV-enrichment. Centrifugation times differed across studies. 26.8% of 82 proteins systematically identified were CNS-specific: 50% ECD+, 77.3% were listed in EV- databases. DISCUSSION: We identified protocol steps requiring standardization, and recommend additional CNS-specific proteins that can be used for BEV-enrichment or as BEV-biomarkers.
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 | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".