Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32166150›Full record

ReviewBrain and neuroscience advances

Open innovation in neuroscience research and drug discovery.

Ann J Hunter, Wen H Lee, Chas Bountra

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain and neuroscience advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ann J HunterBenevolent AI, London, UK.
Wen H LeeStructural Genomics Consortium, Oxford, UK.
Chas BountraStructural Genomics Consortium, Oxford, UK.
Action Against Medical Accidents · GBBenevolentAI (United Kingdom) · GBGenomics (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pressures on the pharmaceutical industry have incentivised a number of new collaborative models of research and development which can be categorised as open innovation. Examples of the different types of models employed are discussed and some, but not all, of these have been used to promote research and drug discovery for central nervous system disorders. Some are completely open access, while others have some intellectual property restrictions. Going forward, more ways of promoting open innovation and the sharing of best practice, especially in the neurosciences, will stimulate research and hopefully accelerate new medicines development.

Indexed as

central nervous system disordersOpen innovationprecompetitive collaboration

Identifiers

PMID32166150
PMCPMC7058200
OpenAlexW2975513073

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.