Back

Extracellular vesicles as a liquid biopsy for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Bolsinger, M. M.; Vivek, N.; Singh, J.; Challa, A.; Khorrami, F.; Zhu, A.; Rothell, T.; Wang, S.; Robbins, N.; Fenwick, L.; Ruttenberg, G.; Bogoniewski, A.; Taha, H. B.

2025-12-09 neurology
10.64898/2025.12.09.25341585 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDefinitive diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is only possible through a postmortem examination. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) have emerged as promising minimally invasive biomarkers for ALS, but studies vary widely in methodology and reproducibility. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic potential of EV-associated proteins and RNAs in ALS. MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed and EMBASE from inception to October 15, 2025. Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Random-effects models were used for continuous outcomes, and diagnostic accuracy was assessed using hierarchical summary ROC and bivariate random-effects models. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg, Egger, and funnel plots. ResultsEV-associated TDP-43 was the most frequently studied protein. Meta-analysis of five studies showed a moderate but non-significant increase in ALS vs. controls (SMD = 1.30) with high heterogeneity (I{superscript 2} = 97.8%). Sixteen studies assessing EV-RNA biomarkers showed minimal overlap and limited independent replication. Diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis across 11 studies yielded moderate performance (AUC = 0.839). No publication bias was found across both meta-analyses. ConclusionsEV biomarkers for ALS show biological promise but are limited by methodological variability and insufficient replication. Standardized protocols, transparent data sharing, and independent validation are needed.

Published in Journal of Translational Medicine · training set

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.