The effects of Lithium on Beta-amyloid deposition and tau phosphorylation: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current anti-amyloid treatments often cause amyloid-related imaging abnormalities in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Lithium demonstrates neuroprotective and neurotrophic effects, and preclinical studies indicate it reduces intracerebral amyloid deposition and tau phosphorylation. This systematic review evaluates lithium's effects on beta-amyloid, tau, and cognitive deficits in major neurocognitive disorders. A systematic review of primary research was conducted using Embase, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases from inception to September 2024, following PRISMA criteria. Animal and adult human studies evaluating lithium monotherapy's effects on AD were included. Long-term low-dose lithium treatment demonstrates inconsistent efficacy in lowering intracerebral amyloid deposition and reversing AD-related cognitive deficits in preclinical and clinical trials. Lithium potentially slows amyloid plaque formation in pre-plaque stages through increasing heat shock proteins and suppressing protein synthesis in preclinical trials. Intracerebral lithium concentrations above 1 mM reduced phosphorylated tau through promoting tau ubiquitination and inhibiting CDK5 signalling in preclinical trials. AD currently needs a comprehensive animal model accurately representing human AD symptoms and progression, and more clinical trials are needed. Several included studies utilize peripheral lithium administration, which complicates assessment of effective intracerebral concentrations. Lithium potentially reduces intracerebral amyloid deposition and tau phosphorylation in AD animal models and may reverse associated cognitive deficits. Further research should seek to replicate similar findings in larger samples and explore lithium's optimal dosage range in promoting intracerebral amyloid clearance. • Lithium may decrease intracerebral Aβ42 levels 4.5 fold • Lithium may reduce amyloid plaque count and size by 45–54.9 % post-plaque formation • Lithium may reverse cognitive deficits in adults with major neurocognitive disorders • Lithium may reduce tau phosphorylation by 50–60 %
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".