Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 371

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 122 of the 122 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The need for new approaches in CNS drug discovery: Why drugs have failed, and what can be done to improve outcomes

Open access
Gribkoff, Valentin K., Kaczmarek, Leonard K.·2017·Neuropharmacology

Abstract

ABSTRACT An important goal of biomedical research is to translate basic research findings into useful medical advances. In the field of neuropharmacology this requires understanding disease mechanisms as well as the effects of drugs and other compounds on neuronal function. Our hope is that this information will result in new or improved treatment for CNS disease. Despite great progress in our understanding of the structure and functions of the CNS, the discovery of new drugs and their clinical development for many CNS disorders has been problematic. As a result, CNS drug discovery and development programs have been subjected to significant cutbacks and eliminations over the last decade. While there has been recent resurgence of interest in CNS targets, these past changes in priority of the pharmaceutical and biotech industries reflect several well‐documented realities. CNS drugs in general have higher failure rates than non‐CNS drugs, both preclinically and clinically, and in some areas, such as the major neurodegenerative diseases, the clinical failure rate for disease‐modifying treatments has been 100%. The development times for CNS drugs are significantly longer for those drugs that are approved, and post‐development regulatory review is longer. In this introduction we review some of the reasons for failure, delineating both scientific and technical realities, some unique to the CNS, that have contributed to this. We will focus on major neurodegenerative disorders, which affect millions, attract most of the headlines, and yet have witnessed the fewest successes. We will suggest some changes that, when coupled with the approaches discussed in the rest of this special volume, may improve outcomes in future CNS‐targeted drug discovery and development efforts. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled “Beyond small molecules for neurological disorders”. HighlightsCNS drug discovery and development has been problematic, particularly in the area of acute and chronic neurodegenerative disorders.These difficulties have resulted in significant cutbacks in CNS drug programs.Drug targets must be better understood in terms of their role in normal CNS function and in disease.Animal models of disease and hypothetical drug regimens must better reflect the clinical condition.Unique combinations may have to be tested, including combinations of drugs which have not independently demonstrated efficacy.Clinical trials may have to be much longer.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2016.03.021

Cites

122 of 122 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 122 references

Cited by

See all 371

Metadata

Authors
Gribkoff, V. K., & Kaczmarek, L. K.
Venue
Neuropharmacology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-07
Volume
120
Pages
11-19
ISSN
0028-3908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2299350316
Cited by
371
References
122
FWCI
11.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The need for new approaches in CNS drug discovery: Why drugs have failed, and what can be done to improve outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2016.03.021
The paper
Gribkoff, V. K., & Kaczmarek, L. K. (2017). The need for new approaches in CNS drug discovery: Why drugs have failed, and what can be done to improve outcomes. Neuropharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2016.03.021

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.