Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31827124›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Improving the odds of drug development success through human genomics: modelling study.

Aroon D Hingorani, Valerie Kuan, Chris Finan, Felix A Kruger, Anna Gaulton, Sandesh Chopade, Reecha Sofat, Raymond J MacAllister, John P Overington, Harry Hemingway and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
22.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

107 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 265 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Exploring upstream and downstream causality of inflammatory cytokines in intervertebral disc degeneration: a bidirectional, two-sample Mendelian randomization study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Paradigm Lost.Cancers · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Aroon D HingoraniInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, UK. a.hingorani@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8365-0081
Valerie KuanInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7873-6972
Chris FinanInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, UK.
Felix A KrugerBenevolent AI, London, UK.
Anna GaultonEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2634-7400
Sandesh ChopadeInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, UK.
Reecha SofatHealth Data Research UK and UCL BHF Research Accelerator, London, UK.
Raymond J MacAllisterDorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Dorchester, UK.
John P OveringtonInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5859-1064
Harry HemingwayHealth Data Research UK and UCL BHF Research Accelerator, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2279-0624
Spiros DenaxasHealth Data Research UK and UCL BHF Research Accelerator, London, UK.
David PrietoInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5001-0061
Juan Pablo CasasMassachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center (MAVERIC), Veterans Administration, Boston, MA, USA.
Health Data Research UK · GBBenevolentAI (United Kingdom) · GBDorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBEuropean Bioinformatics Institute · GBMedicines Discovery Catapult · GBUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs · USUniversity College Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Arthritis Research UKBritish Heart Foundation RG/10/12/28456Cancer Research UKChief Scientist OfficeMedical Research Council K006584/1Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lack of efficacy in the intended disease indication is the major cause of clinical phase drug development failure. Explanations could include the poor external validity of pre-clinical (cell, tissue, and animal) models of human disease and the high false discovery rate (FDR) in preclinical science. FDR is related to the proportion of true relationships available for discovery (γ), and the type 1 (false-positive) and type 2 (false negative) error rates of the experiments designed to uncover them. We estimated the FDR in preclinical science, its effect on drug development success rates, and improvements expected from use of human genomics rather than preclinical studies as the primary source of evidence for drug target identification. Calculations were based on a sample space defined by all human diseases - the 'disease-ome' - represented as columns; and all protein coding genes - 'the protein-coding genome'- represented as rows, producing a matrix of unique gene- (or protein-) disease pairings. We parameterised the space based on 10,000 diseases, 20,000 protein-coding genes, 100 causal genes per disease and 4000 genes encoding druggable targets, examining the effect of varying the parameters and a range of underlying assumptions, on the inferences drawn. We estimated γ, defined mathematical relationships between preclinical FDR and drug development success rates, and estimated improvements in success rates based on human genomics (rather than orthodox preclinical studies). Around one in every 200 protein-disease pairings was estimated to be causal (γ = 0.005) giving an FDR in preclinical research of 92.6%, which likely makes a major contribution to the reported drug development failure rate of 96%. Observed success rate was only slightly greater than expected for a random pick from the sample space. Values for γ back-calculated from reported preclinical and clinical drug development success rates were also close to the a priori estimates. Substituting genome wide (or druggable genome wide) association studies for preclinical studies as the major information source for drug target identification was estimated to reverse the probability of late stage failure because of the more stringent type 1 error rate employed and the ability to interrogate every potential druggable target in the same experiment. Genetic studies conducted at much larger scale, with greater resolution of disease end-points, e.g. by connecting genomics and electronic health record data within healthcare systems has the potential to produce radical improvement in drug development success rate.

Indexed as

Drug DevelopmentGenomicsGenome-Wide Association StudyHumans

Identifiers

PMID31827124
PMCPMC6906499
OpenAlexW2995908837

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.