This page defines the 10-dimension scoring rubric used to evaluate and rank proposed experiments in NeuroWiki's experiments section. Each dimension is scored on a 0-10 scale, with weighted calculations to produce a composite score (max 120 points).
| Dimension |
Abbr |
Weight |
Description |
| Scientific Value |
SV |
2x |
Potential to advance mechanistic understanding of disease processes |
| Feasibility |
F |
1.5x |
Practical likelihood of successful execution with current technology |
| Novelty |
N |
1.5x |
Degree to which the experiment addresses unexplored questions |
| Disease Impact |
DI |
2x |
Potential to directly benefit patients with AD, PD, or related diseases |
| Reach |
R |
1x |
Breadth of applicability across multiple diseases or patient populations |
| Cost Efficiency |
CE |
1x |
Scientific output relative to resource investment |
| Time Efficiency |
TE |
1x |
Timeline to meaningful results |
| Evidence Base |
EB |
1x |
Pre-existing data supporting the experimental approach |
| Addresses Uncertainty |
AU |
1.5x |
Potential to resolve key scientific unknowns |
| Translation Potential |
TP |
2x |
Likelihood of leading to clinical applications |
Total Score = Σ(dimension_score × weight)
Maximum possible weighted score = 10 × 12 = 120 points
- 100-120: Exceptional priority — immediate funding recommended
- 80-99: High priority — strong candidate for rapid implementation
- 60-79: Moderate priority — valuable but may need additional validation
- 40-59: Lower priority — consider as supplementary research
- <40: Limited value — reconsider approach or scope
| Score |
Description |
| 0-2 |
No meaningful contribution to disease understanding |
| 3-4 |
Confirms existing knowledge without new insights |
| 5-6 |
Provides incremental advance in mechanistic understanding |
| 7-8 |
Reveals novel mechanism or pathway relevant to neurodegeneration |
| 9-10 |
Paradigm-shifting insight that fundamentally changes disease model |
| Score |
Description |
| 0-2 |
Requires technology not yet developed; >10 years to implement |
| 3-4 |
Significant technical barriers; 5-10 years to overcome |
| 5-6 |
Some technical challenges; 2-5 years to resolve |
| 7-8 |
Mostly achievable with current methods; 1-2 years |
| 9-10 |
Straightforward execution with existing techniques; <1 year |
| Score |
Description |
| 0-2 |
Completely explored question; no new information expected |
| 3-4 |
Minor variation on established approaches |
| 5-6 |
Addresses underexplored angle of known mechanism |
| 7-8 |
Novel experimental approach to open question |
| 9-10 |
First-in-kind experiment; completely unexplored hypothesis |
| Score |
Description |
| 0-2 |
No direct relevance to human disease |
| 3-4 |
Indirect relevance; basic science only |
| 5-6 |
Relevant to disease mechanisms; potential therapeutic implications |
| 7-8 |
Clear path to disease modification or treatment |
| 9-10 |
Direct clinical translation; could change standard of care |
| Score |
Description |
| 0-2 |
Single rare subtype only |
| 3-4 |
Single disease only |
| 5-6 |
Relevant to one major neurodegenerative disease |
| 7-8 |
Applicable to multiple neurodegenerative diseases |
| 9-10 |
Broad applicability across neurodegeneration, aging, and beyond |
| Score |
Description |
| 0-2 |
>0M required for minimal information gain |
| 3-4 |
-10M; information value questionable |
| 5-6 |
-5M; reasonable return on investment |
| 7-8 |
00K-1M; high information value |
| 9-10 |
<00K; exceptional resource efficiency |
| Score |
Description |
| 0-2 |
>10 years to meaningful results |
| 3-4 |
5-10 years; long timeline |
| 5-6 |
2-5 years; reasonable |
| 7-8 |
1-2 years; rapid |
| 9-10 |
<1 year; immediate actionable results |
| Score |
Description |
| 0-2 |
No pre-existing support; purely speculative |
| 3-4 |
Weak preliminary data; high risk |
| 5-6 |
Moderate preliminary evidence; some uncertainty |
| 7-8 |
Strong supporting data; reasonable confidence |
| 9-10 |
Comprehensive evidence base; high certainty of success |
| Score |
Description |
| 0-2 |
Does not address any key unknowns |
| 3-4 |
Minor contribution to resolving uncertainty |
| 5-6 |
Addresses one significant knowledge gap |
| 7-8 |
Resolves multiple key questions |
| 9-10 |
Could resolve fundamental controversy in field |
| Score |
Description |
| 0-2 |
No path to clinical application envisioned |
| 3-4 |
Very long path; significant hurdles |
| 5-6 |
Clear preclinical-to-clinical pathway |
| 7-8 |
Near-term clinical trial potential |
| 9-10 |
Immediate clinical implementation possible |
When proposing a new experiment, include a scoring table in your page:
| Dimension |
Score |
Rationale |
| Scientific Value |
X |
[Brief explanation] |
| Feasibility |
X |
[Brief explanation] |
| Novelty |
X |
[Brief explanation] |
| Disease Impact |
X |
[Brief explanation] |
| Reach |
X |
[Brief explanation] |
| Cost Efficiency |
X |
[Brief explanation] |
| Time Efficiency |
X |
[Brief explanation] |
| Evidence Base |
X |
[Brief explanation] |
| Addresses Uncertainty |
X |
[Brief explanation] |
| Translation Potential |
X |
[Brief explanation] |
| Total |
XX/120 |
Weighted sum |