ReviewFrontiers in molecular neuroscience2024
Tackling neurodegeneration
Review in Frontiers in molecular neuroscience, 2024. 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.
- A reproducible three-dimensional model of human brain tissue to investigate physiological and disease-associated microglia phenotypes.Nature neuroscience · 2026Article
- Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Based Platforms for Cardiac-Related Pain Research: Molecular Mechanisms, Experimental Models, and Therapeutic Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Deep Learning for Anticancer Drug Discovery Targeting Non-Apoptotic Regulated Cell Death Mechanisms.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Multiomics approach identifies SERPINB1 as candidate biomarker for spinocerebellar ataxia type 2.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Amyloid-β Clearance with Monoclonal Antibodies: Transforming Alzheimer's Treatment.Current protein & peptide science · 2025Review
- The role of autophagy in the pathogenesis and treatment of multiple sclerosis.Autophagy reports · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in neurodegenerative diseases research: a bibliometric analysis since 2000.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug discovery is a generally inefficient and capital-intensive process. For neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs), the development of novel therapeutics is particularly urgent considering the long list of late-stage drug candidate failures. Although our knowledge on the pathogenic mechanisms driving neurodegeneration is growing, additional efforts are required to achieve a better and ultimately complete understanding of the pathophysiological underpinnings of NDDs. Beyond the etiology of NDDs being heterogeneous and multifactorial, this process is further complicated by the fact that current experimental models only partially recapitulate the major phenotypes observed in humans. In such a scenario, multi-omic approaches have the potential to accelerate the identification of new or repurposed drugs against a multitude of the underlying mechanisms driving NDDs. One major advantage for the implementation of multi-omic approaches in the drug discovery process is that these overarching tools are able to disentangle disease states and model perturbations through the comprehensive characterization of distinct molecular layers (i.e., genome, transcriptome, proteome) up to a single-cell resolution. Because of recent advances increasing their affordability and scalability, the use of omics technologies to drive drug discovery is nascent, but rapidly expanding in the neuroscience field. Combined with increasingly advanced
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.