↓ Skip to main content

Bayesian Quantitative Disease–Drug–Trial Models for Parkinson’s Disease to Guide Early Drug Development

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Bayesian Quantitative Disease–Drug–Trial Models for Parkinson’s Disease to Guide Early Drug Development
Published in
The AAPS Journal, July 2011
DOI 10.1208/s12248-011-9293-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joo Yeon Lee, Jogarao V. S. Gobburu

Abstract

The problem we have faced in drug development is in its efficiency. Almost a half of registration trials are reported to fail mainly because pharmaceutical companies employ one-size-fits-all development strategies. Our own experience at the regulatory agency suggests that failure to utilize prior experience or knowledge from previous trials also accounts for trial failure. Prior knowledge refers to both drug-specific and nonspecific information such as placebo effect and the disease course. The information generated across drug development can be systematically compiled to guide future drug development. Quantitative disease-drug-trial models are mathematical representations of the time course of biomarker and clinical outcomes, placebo effects, a drug's pharmacologic effects, and trial execution characteristics for both the desired and undesired responses. Applying disease-drug-trial model paradigms to design a future trial has been proposed to overcome current problems in drug development. Parkinson's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by bradykinesia, rigidity, tremor, and postural instability. A symptomatic effect of drug treatments as well as natural rate of disease progression determines the rate of disease deterioration. Currently, there is no approved drug which claims disease modification. Regulatory agency has been asked to comment on the trial design and statistical analysis methodology. In this work, we aim to show how disease-drug-trial model paradigm can help in drug development and how prior knowledge from previous studies can be incorporated into a current trial using Parkinson's disease model as an example. We took full Bayesian methodology which can allow one to translate prior information into probability distribution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 6%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 47 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Other 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 10%
Neuroscience 5 10%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 November 2013.
All research outputs
#15,285,728
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#916
of 1,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,828
of 119,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 119,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.