Can literature analysis identify innovation drivers in drug discovery?

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 8, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 865-878

  Agarwal, Pankaj ^a   Searls, David B ^a  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME; ARTICLE; BIBLIOMETRICS; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DOCTORAL EDUCATION; DRUG RESEARCH; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; FUNDING; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION; INVESTMENT; MEDICAID; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MEDICARE; NONHUMAN; PATENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

BIBLIOMETRICS; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS; DRUG DISCOVERY; DRUG INDUSTRY; HUMANS; PUBLICATIONS; RESEARCH;

EID: 70350765132     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: 14741784     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd2973     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Zhong, X. & Moseley, G. B. Mission possible: Managing innovation in drug discovery. Nature Biotech. 25, 945-946 (2007).
2. Ullman, F. & Boutellier, R. A case study of lean drug discovery: From project driven research to innovation studios and process factories. Drug Discov. Today 13, 543-550 (2008).
3. Sams-Dodd, F. Optimizing the discovery organization for innovation. Drug Discov. Today 10, 1049-1056 (2005).
4. Cohen, F. J. Macro trends in pharmaceutical innovation. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 78-84 (2005).
5. Chin-Dusting, J., Mizrahi, J., Jennings, G. & Fitzgerald, D. Finding improved medicines: The role of academic-industrial collaboration. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 891-897 (2005).
6. Vallance, P. & Levick, M. Drug discovery and development in the age of molecular medicine. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 82, 363-366 (2007).
7. Kneller, R. The origins of new drugs. Nature Biotech. 23, 529-530 (2005).
8. Davenport, T. H. & Harris, J. G. Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning. (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 2007).
9. US Department of Health and Human Services. Innovation or stagnation? Challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products. The National Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology and Education website [online] (2004).
10. Card, D. & Lemieux, T. Going to college to avoid the draft: The unintended legacy of the Vietnam war. Am. Econ. Rev. 91, 97-102 (2001).
11. Shumway, R. H. & Stoffer, D. S. Time Series Analysis and Its Applications. (Springer, New York, 2005).
12. Ruffalo, R. R. Why has R&D productivity declined in the pharmaceutical industry? Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 1, 99-102 (2006).
13. Bren, L. Frances Oldham Kelsey: FDA medical reviewer leaves her mark on history. FDA Consum. 35, 24-29 (2001).
14. Mathers, C. D. et al. The global burden of disease in 2002: Data sources, methods and results. Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy. Discussion Paper No. 54. World Health Organization (2003; revised 2004).
15. Teitelbaum, M. S. Research funding: Structural disequilibria in biomedical research. Science 321, 644-645 (2008).
16. Cohen, J. Bang for the buck. Science 321, 518-519 (2008).
17. Taroncher-Oldenburg, G. & Marshall, A. Trends in biotech literature 2006. Nature Biotechnol. 25, 961 (2007).
18. Payne, D. J., Gwynn, M. N., Holmes, D. J. & Pompliano, D. L. Drugs for bad bugs: Confronting the challenges of antibacterial discovery. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 29-40 (2007).
19. Vicente, M. et al. The fallacies of hope: Will we discover new antibiotics to combat pathogenic bacteria in time? FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 30, 841-852 (2006).
20. Coates, A. R. & Hu, Y. Novel approaches to developing new antibiotics for bacterial infections. Br. J. Pharmacol. 152, 1147-1154 (2007).
21. Ashiya, M. & Smith, R. E. T. Non-insulin therapies for type 2 diabetes. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 777-778 (2007).
22. Das, S. K. & Chakrabarti, R. Non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: present therapies and new drug targets. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 5 1019-1034 (2005).
23. Morral, N. Novel targets and therapeutic strategies for type 2 diabetes. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 14, 169-175 (2003).
24. Webby, R. J. & Webster, R. G. Are we ready for pandemic influenza? Science 302, 1519-1522 (2003).
25. Caviedes, J. E. & Cimino, J. J. Towards the development of a conceptual distance metric for the UMLS. J. Biomed. Inform. 37, 77-85 (2004).
26. Wang, X. et al. Automating terminological networks to link heterogeneous biomedical databases. Medinfo 11, 555-559 (2004).
27. Patel, C. O. & Cimino, J. J. Mining cross-terminology links in the UMLS. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2006, 624-628 (2006).
28. Pedersen, T., Pakhomov, S. V., Patwardhan, S. & Chute, C. G. Measures of semantic similarity and relatedness in the biomedical domain. J. Biomed. Inform. 40, 288-299 (2007).
29. Agarwal, P. & Searls, D. B. Literature mining in support of drug discovery. Brief Bioinform. 9, 479-492 (2008).
30. Kalberer, J. T. Jr & Newell, G. R. Jr. Funding impact of the National Cancer Act and beyond. Cancer Res. 39, 4274-4284 (1979).
31. Karpas, A. Human retroviruses in leukaemia and AIDS: Reflections on their discovery, biology and epidemiology. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 79, 911-933 (2004).
32. Cohen, J. HIV/AIDS. Where have all the dollars gone? Science 321, 520 (2008).
33. Dorsey, E. R. et al. Financial anatomy of neuroscience research. Ann. Neurol. 60, 652-659 (2006).
34. Bollen, J., Rodriquez, M. A. & Van de Sompel, H. Journal status. Scientometrics 69, 669-687 (2006).
35. Evans, J. A. Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 321, 395-399 (2008).
36. Ducor, P. Intellectual property: Coauthorship and coinventorship. Science 289, 873-875 (2000).
37. Murray, F. Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: Exploring tissue engineering. Res. Policy 31, 1389-1403 (2002).
38. Fontenot, J. D. & Rudensky, A. Y. A well adapted regulatory contrivance: regulatory T cell development and the forkhead family transcription factor Foxp3. Nature Immunol. 6, 331-337 (2005).
39. Mesa, R. A. New insights into the pathogenesis and treatment of chronic myeloproliferative disorders. Curr. Opin. Hematol. 15, 121-126 (2008).
40. Gable, D. R., Hurel, S. J. & Humphries, S. E. Adiponectin and its gene variants as risk factors for insulin resistance, the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. Atherosclerosis 188, 231-244 (2006).
41. Ramanana-Rahary, S., Zitt, M. & Rousseau, R. Aggregation properties of relative impact and other classical indicators: Convexity issues and the Yule-Simpson paradox. Scientometrics 79, 311-327 (2009).
42. Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S. & Bassecoulard, E. Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics 63, 373-401 (2005).
43. Lehmann, J. M. et al. An antidiabetic thiazolidinedione is a high affinity ligand for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptorγ (PPARγ). J. Biol. Chem. 270, 12953-12956 (1995).
44. Calabrese, L. & Fleischer, A. B. Thalidomide: Current and potential clinical applications. Am. J. Med. 108, 487-495 (2000).
45. Rosvall, M. & Bergstrom, C. T. Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1118-1123 (2008).
46. Searls, D. B. Mining the bibliome. Pharmacogenomics J. 1, 88-89 (2001).
47. De Solla Price, D. J. Little Science, Big Science. (Yale University, New Haven, 1963).
48. Price, D. J. Networks of scientific papers. Science 149, 510-515 (1965).
49. Lawrence, P. A. The mismeasurement of science. Curr. Biol. 17 R583-R585 (2007).
50. Lawrence, P. A. The politics of publication. Nature 422, 259-261 (2003).
51. Garfield, E. & Melino, G. The growth of the cell death field: An analysis from the ISI-Science citation index. Cell Death Differ. 4, 352-361 (1997).
52. Takahashi, K., Aw, T. C. & Koh, D. An alternative to journal-based impact factors. Occup. Med. (Lond.) 49, 57-59 (1999).
53. Sayers, E. & Wheeler, D. Building Customized Data Pipelines Using the Entrez Programming Utilities (eUtils). The NCBI website [online] (2004).
54. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Historical data on federal R&D, FY 1978-2009. The AAAS website [online] (2008).
55. National Science Foundation. Doctoral degress awarded, by detailed field: 1920-99. The National Science Foundation website [online] (accessed 2009).
56. Falkenheim, J. C. & Fiegener, M. K. 2007 records fifth consecutive annual increase in US doctoral awards. The National Science Foundation website [online] (2008).