Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32095767›Full record

ReviewDigital biomarkers

Digital Medicine: A Primer on Measurement.

Andrea Coravos, Jennifer C Goldsack, Daniel R Karlin, Camille Nebeker, Eric Perakslis, Noah Zimmerman, M Kelley Erb

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital biomarkers. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05983718 (Comparison of Positional Accuracy in Dental Implant Placement Between Conventionally Used Guide Pin and 3D Printed Surgical Guide Developed From CBCT), which is not on this map. Cited by 90 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05983718 naunknown statusnot on this map

Comparison of Positional Accuracy in Dental Implant Placement Between Conventionally Used Guide Pin and 3D Printed Surgical Guide Developed From CBCT

TypeinterventionalSponsorDhaka Dental College and HospitalRan2023 to 2024Enrolled28ConditionsPartially Edentulous Mandible, Dental ImplantationArmsSurgical Guide, Guide-pin-assisted Freehand surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

90 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. The Next Frontiers in Preventive and Personalized Healthcare: Artificial Intelligent-powered Solutions.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

30 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

7 authors.

Andrea CoravosElektra Labs, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jennifer C GoldsackThe Digital Medicine Society (DiMe), Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Daniel R KarlinThe Digital Medicine Society (DiMe), Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Camille NebekerDepartment of Family Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Eric PerakslisRubenstein Fellow - Duke Forge, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Noah ZimmermanDepartment of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
M Kelley ErbDigital Medicine and Translational Imaging, Worldwide Research, Development, and Medical, Pfizer Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Technology is changing how we practice medicine. Sensors and wearables are getting smaller and cheaper, and algorithms are becoming powerful enough to predict medical outcomes. Yet despite rapid advances, healthcare lags behind other industries in truly putting these technologies to use. A major barrier to entry is the cross-disciplinary approach required to create such tools, requiring knowledge from many people across many fields. We aim to drive the field forward by unpacking that barrier, providing a brief introduction to core concepts and terms that define digital medicine. Specifically, we contrast "clinical research" versus routine "clinical care," outlining the security, ethical, regulatory, and legal issues developers must consider as digital medicine products go to market. We classify types of digital measurements and how to use and validate these measures in different settings. To make this resource engaging and accessible, we have included illustrations and figures throughout that we hope readers will borrow from liberally. This primer is the first in a series that will accelerate the safe and effective advancement of the field of digital medicine.

Indexed as

Clinical careClinical researchCybersecurityData governanceData rightsDecentralized clinical trialsDigital biomarkersDigital healthDigital medicineDigital technology toolsEthicsFDAMobile technologyPrivacyRegulatory scienceResearch ethicsSensors

Identifiers

PMID32095767
PMCPMC7015383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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 OpenQuestion graph.