Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29038381›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2017

Has molecular imaging delivered to drug development?

Philip S Murphy, Neel Patel, Timothy J McCarthy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Challenges for chemistry in molecular imaging.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Philip S MurphyGlaxoSmithKline, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage SG1 2NY, UK philip.s.murphy@gsk.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5773-5161
Neel PatelGlaxoSmithKline, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage SG1 2NY, UK.
Timothy J McCarthyPfizer Worldwide R&D, 1 Portland Street, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmaceutical research and development requires a systematic interrogation of a candidate molecule through clinical studies. To ensure resources are spent on only the most promising molecules, early clinical studies must understand fundamental attributes of the drug candidate, including exposure at the target site, target binding and pharmacological response in disease. Molecular imaging has the potential to quantitatively characterize these properties in small, efficient clinical studies. Specific benefits of molecular imaging in this setting (compared to blood and tissue sampling) include non-invasiveness and the ability to survey the whole body temporally. These methods have been adopted primarily for neuroscience drug development, catalysed by the inability to access the brain compartment by other means. If we believe molecular imaging is a technology platform able to underpin clinical drug development, why is it not adopted further to enable earlier decisions? This article considers current drug development needs, progress towards integration of molecular imaging into studies, current impediments and proposed models to broaden use and increase impact.This article is part of the themed issue 'Challenges for chemistry in molecular imaging'.

Indexed as

Drug DevelopmentHumansMolecular ImagingMolecular Probe TechniquesMultimodal ImagingPrecision MedicineRadiopharmaceuticalsRadiopharmaceuticalsdrug developmentmolecular imagingpharmaceutical research and development

Identifiers

PMID29038381
PMCPMC5647269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.