Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31674729›Full record

ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2020

Quantitative Systems Pharmacology for Neuroscience Drug Discovery and Development: Current Status, Opportunities, and Challenges.

Hugo Geerts, John Wikswo, Piet H van der Graaf, Jane P F Bai, Chris Gaiteri, David Bennett, Susanne E Swalley, Edgar Schuck, Rima Kaddurah-Daouk, Katya Tsaioun and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Mathematical Modeling of Neuroinflammation in Neurodegenerative Diseases.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

11 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Hugo GeertsIn Silico Biosciences, Berwyn, Pennsylvania, USA.
John WikswoVanderbilt Institute for Integrative Biosystems Research and Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Piet H van der GraafCertara, Canterbury, UK.
Jane P F BaiCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Chris GaiteriRush Alzheimer's Disease Center, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
David BennettRush Alzheimer's Disease Center, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Susanne E SwalleyBiogen Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Edgar SchuckEisai, Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, USA.
Rima Kaddurah-DaoukDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Katya TsaiounJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Mary PelleymounterDivision of Translational Research, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Rush University · USBiogen (United States) · USDuke Medical Center · USEisai (United States) · USIn Silico Biosciences (United States) · USJohns Hopkins University · USNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The substantial progress made in the basic sciences of the brain has yet to be adequately translated to successful clinical therapeutics to treat central nervous system (CNS) diseases. Possible explanations include the lack of quantitative and validated biomarkers, the subjective nature of many clinical endpoints, and complex pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships, but also the possibility that highly selective drugs in the CNS do not reflect the complex interactions of different brain circuits. Although computational systems pharmacology modeling designed to capture essential components of complex biological systems has been increasingly accepted in pharmaceutical research and development for oncology, inflammation, and metabolic disorders, the uptake in the CNS field has been very modest. In this article, a cross-disciplinary group with representatives from academia, pharma, regulatory, and funding agencies make the case that the identification and exploitation of CNS therapeutic targets for drug discovery and development can benefit greatly from a system and network approach that can span the gap between molecular pathways and the neuronal circuits that ultimately regulate brain activity and behavior. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), in collaboration with the National Institute on Aging (NIA), National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), convened a workshop to explore and evaluate the potential of a quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) approach to CNS drug discovery and development. The objective of the workshop was to identify the challenges and opportunities of QSP as an approach to accelerate drug discovery and development in the field of CNS disorders. In particular, the workshop examined the potential for computational neuroscience to perform QSP-based interrogation of the mechanism of action for CNS diseases, along with a more accurate and comprehensive method for evaluating drug effects and optimizing the design of clinical trials. Following up on an earlier white paper on the use of QSP in general disease mechanism of action and drug discovery, this report focuses on new applications, opportunities, and the accompanying limitations of QSP as an approach to drug development in the CNS therapeutic area based on the discussions in the workshop with various stakeholders.

Indexed as

AnimalsCentral Nervous System AgentsCentral Nervous System DiseasesDrug DevelopmentDrug DiscoveryHumansPharmacologySystems BiologyCentral Nervous System Agents

Identifiers

PMID31674729
PMCPMC6966183
OpenAlexW2985085174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.