Drug development for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): Progress, challenges, and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2017, facing lack of progress and failures encountered in targeted drug development for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and related neurodevelopmental disorders, the ISCTM with the ECNP created the ASD Working Group charged to identify barriers to progress and recommending research strategies for the field to gain traction. Working Group international academic, regulatory and industry representatives held multiple in-person meetings, teleconferences, and subgroup communications to gather a wide range of perspectives on lessons learned from extant studies, current challenges, and paths for fundamental advances in ASD therapeutics. This overview delineates the barriers identified, and outlines major goals for next generation biomedical intervention development in ASD. Current challenges for ASD research are many: heterogeneity, lack of validated biomarkers, need for improved endpoints, prioritizing molecular targets, comorbidities, and more. The Working Group emphasized cautious but unwavering optimism for therapeutic progress for ASD core features given advances in the basic neuroscience of ASD and related disorders. Leveraging genetic data, intermediate phenotypes, digital phenotyping, big database discovery, refined endpoints, and earlier intervention, the prospects for breakthrough treatments are substantial. Recommendations include new priorities for expanded research funding to overcome challenges in translational clinical ASD therapeutic research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".