Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/552976

Delivering on the Vision of Bench to Bedside: A Rare Disease Funding Community Collaboration to Develop Effective Therapies for Neurofibromatosis Type 1 Tumors

La Rosa, S.·Browder, V.·Bakker, A. C.·Blakeley, J. O.·Verma, S. K.·Wong, L. M.·Morris, J. A.·Bora, N.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The time from target identification to new drug approval is often measured in decades. This can be even more challenging for rare diseases. Indeed, 95% of rare diseases do not have a specific therapy approved. Coordinated efforts to support research along the drug development pipeline can provide long term and comprehensive support to enable scientific breakthroughs for rare diseases. However, this requires coordination across multiple stakeholders. The present article analyzes the funding efforts of four major federal and philanthropic organizations to accelerate the advancement of MEK inhibitors to human clinical trials for NF1-associated tumors.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

La Rosa, S., Browder, V., Bakker, A. C., Blakeley, J. O., Verma, S. K., Wong, L. M., Morris, J. A., Bora, N.. 2019-02-19. Delivering on the Vision of Bench to Bedside: A Rare Disease Funding Community Collaboration to Develop Effective Therapies for Neurofibromatosis Type 1 Tumors. https://doi.org/10.1101/552976

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2019

Is useful research data usually shared? An investigation of genome-wide association study summary statistics

Primary data collected during a research study is increasingly shared and may be re-used for new studies. To assess the extent of data sharing in favourable circumstances and whether such checks can be automated, this article investigates the summary statistics of primary human genome-wide association studies (GWAS). This type of data is highly suitable for sharing because it is a standard research output, is straightforward to use in future studies (e.g., for secondary analysis), and may be already stored in a standard format for internal sharing within multi-site research projects. Manual checks of 1799 articles from 2010 and 2017 matching a simple PubMed query for molecular epidemiology GWAS were used to identify 330 primary human GWAS papers. Of these, only 10.6% reported the location of a complete set of GWAS summary data, increasing from 4.3% in 2010 to 16.8% in 2017. Whilst information about whether data was shared was usually located clearly within a data availability statement, the exact nature of the shared data was usually unspecified. Thus, data sharing is the exception even in suitable research fields with relatively strong norms regarding data sharing. Moreover, the lack of clear data descriptions within data sharing statements greatly complicates the task of automatically characterising shared data sets.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2019

Dissemination and Stakeholder Engagement Practices Among Dissemination & Implementation Scientists: Results from an Online Survey

IntroductionThere has been an increasing focus on disseminating research findings, but less about practices specific to disseminating and engaging non-researchers. The present project sought to describe dissemination practices and engagement of stakeholders among dissemination & implementation (D&I) scientists.\n\nMethodsMethods to disseminate to and engage non-research stakeholders were assessed using an online survey sent to a broad, diverse sample of D&I scientists.\n\nResultsSurveys were received from 210 participants. The majority of respondents were from university or research settings in the U.S. (69%) or Canada (13%), representing a mix of clinical (28%) and community settings (34%). 26% had received formal training in D&I. Respondents indicated routinely engaging in a variety of dissemination-related activities, with academic journal publications (88%), conference presentations (86%), and reports to funders (74%) being the most frequent. Journal publication was identified as the most impactful on respondents careers (94%), but face-to-face meetings with stakeholders were rated as most impactful on practice or policy (40%). Stakeholder involvement in research was common, with clinical and community-based researchers engaging stakeholder groups in broadly similar ways, but with critical differences noted between researchers with greater seniority, those with more D&I training, those based in the US, and those in community vs, clinical research settings.\n\nConclusionsThere have been increases in stakeholder engagement, but few other practices since the 2012 survey, and some differences across subgroups. Methods to engage different stakeholders deserve more in-depth investigation. D&I researchers report substantial misalignment of incentives and behaviors related to dissemination to non-research audiences.

scientific communication and education↗