Aligning physiology with psychology: Translational neuroscience in neuropsychiatric drug discovery
Abstract
This review presents an overview of some of the pre-clinical and clinical issues that have contributed to the failures of potential novel neuropsychiatric drugs, which have prompted a re-examination of the role of animal models of neuropsychiatric disorders. Advances both in basic neuroscience and technology have driven the development of animal models of aspects of neuropsychiatric disorders. Genetics and environmental factors have been the primary contributors to the development of new animal models. Neuroimaging has contributed to the search for biomarkers by which neuropsychiatric disorders may be identified and differentiated, its progression monitored and that the effects of therapy assessed. Parallel to these theoretical and practical advancements have been the changes in the diagnosis and classification of neuropsychiatric disorders from DSM-4 to DSM-5, and emergence of the NIH initiatives such as MATRICS; CNTRICS and RDoC. These latter changes are shifting our concepts of neuropsychiatric disorders away from phenomenology to their biology and thus aligning physiology with psychology.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Poor safety accounts for 20-30% of failures of CNS drugs.
“Between 50 and 60% of all failures of CNS drugs are the result of poor efficacy/efficiency, while poor safety accounts for 20-30% of failures (McArthur, 2017).”
From Novel pharmacological targets in drug development for the treatment of anxiety and anxiety-related disorders (2019) · cites this paper as McArthur, 2017
Between 50 and 60% of all failures of CNS drugs are the result of poor efficacy/efficiency.
“Between 50 and 60% of all failures of CNS drugs are the result of poor efficacy/efficiency, while poor safety accounts for 20-30% of failures (McArthur, 2017).”
From Novel pharmacological targets in drug development for the treatment of anxiety and anxiety-related disorders (2019) · cites this paper as McArthur, 2017
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 403 · Cited by 42
- Authors
- McArthur, R. A.
- Corresponding author
- McArthur, Robert A.
- Venue
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-05
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- Pt A
- Pages
- 4-21
- ISSN
- 0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2605735063
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 403
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 0.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
- Keywords
- translational neuroscience, drug development failure, neuroimaging biomarkers, environmental factors, DSM-5, MATRICS, physiology and psychology
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Humans, Biomarkers, Models, Animal, Drug Discovery, Translational Research, Biomedical, Neuroimaging
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review