ReviewThe Yale journal of biology and medicine2017
Is Open Science the Future of Drug Development?
Review in The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drug review process advancement and required manufacturer and contract research oraganization responses.Journal of toxicologic pathology · 2024Review
- A model for crowdsourcing high-impact research questions for Castleman disease and other rare diseases.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Article
- Construction of multiple concentration gradients for single-cell level drug screening.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2023Article
- Low-cost anti-mycobacterial drug discovery using engineered E. coli.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Identification ofGenes · 2019Article
- Article
- Open science approaches to COVID-19.F1000ResearchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional drug development models are widely perceived as opaque and inefficient, with the cost of research and development continuing to rise even as production of new drugs stays constant. Searching for strategies to improve the drug discovery process, the biomedical research field has begun to embrace open strategies. The resulting changes are starting to reshape the industry. Open science-an umbrella term for diverse strategies that seek external input and public engagement-has become an essential tool with researchers, who are increasingly turning to collaboration, crowdsourcing, data sharing, and open sourcing to tackle some of the most pressing problems in medicine. Notable examples of such open drug development include initiatives formed around malaria and tropical disease. Open practices have found their way into the drug discovery process, from target identification and compound screening to clinical trials. This perspective argues that while open science poses some risks-which include the management of collaboration and the protection of proprietary data-these strategies are, in many cases, the more efficient and ethical way to conduct biomedical research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28356902PMC5369032What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.