A white paper on a neurodevelopmental framework for drug discovery in autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade there has been a revolution in terms of genetic findings in neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), with many discoveries critical for understanding their aetiology and pathophysiology. Clinical trials in single-gene disorders such as fragile X syndrome highlight the challenges of investigating new drug targets in NDDs. Incorporating a developmental perspective into the process of drug development for NDDs could help to overcome some of the current difficulties in identifying and testing new treatments. This paper provides a summary of the proceedings of the 'New Frontiers Meeting' on neurodevelopmental disorders organised by the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology in conjunction with the Innovative Medicines Initiative-sponsored AIMS-2-TRIALS consortium. It brought together experts in developmental genetics, autism, NDDs, and clinical trials from academia and industry, regulators, patient and family associations, and other stakeholders. The meeting sought to provide a platform for focused communication on scientific insights, challenges, and methodologies that might be applicable to the development of CNS treatments from a neurodevelopmental perspective. Multidisciplinary translational consortia to develop basic and clinical research in parallel could be pivotal to advance knowledge in the field. Although implementation of clinical trials for NDDs in paediatric populations is widely acknowledged as essential, safety concerns should guide each aspect of their design. Industry and academia should join forces to improve knowledge of the biology of brain development, identify the optimal timing of interventions, and translate these findings into new drugs, allowing for the needs of users and families, with support from regulatory agencies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".