ReviewNeuroscience applied2026
Application of the research domain criteria in early-phase clinical development of transdiagnostic neurotherapeutics: A multidisciplinary perspective.
Review in Neuroscience applied, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transdiagnostic, dimensional frameworks such as the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) are increasingly regarded as promising vehicles for precision neuropsychiatric drug development, yet no treatment has been approved that was explicitly developed according to such principles. This work, conducted under the aegis of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Thematic Working Group on Clinical Outcomes in Early-Phase Clinical Trials, synthesises seven structured multidisciplinary expert meetings supported by a narrative literature review to delineate opportunities and barriers for implementing RDoC in early-phase clinical development. We identify four key operational domains that condition the success of RDoC-aligned programmes: (1) terminology clarity and working definitions for RDoC-aligned trials and target constructs; (2) construct-enriched population selection methodologies; (3) selection, development or modification of construct-aligned clinical outcome assessments that are fit-for-purpose in transdiagnostic research settings; and (4) navigation of regulatory frameworks that remain anchored in categorical diagnoses. Through selected illustrative cases-most notably the aticaprant development program targeting anhedonia in mood and anxiety disorders-we demonstrate how early phase RDoC-aligned trial designs can be compromised at the pivotal stage by the absence of validated endpoints and regulatory constraints on labelling. On this basis, we propose pragmatic recommendations, including consensus-based definitions, registry tagging of RDoC-aligned trials, data-driven biomarker-based transdiagnostic enrichment strategies (i.e., biotyping), and early, iterative engagement with regulators and health technology assessment agencies. Systematic attention to these domains is required for enabling the development of neurobiologically RDoC informed treatments to be delivered to the right patients at the right time.
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.