Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32095769›Full record

ArticleDigital biomarkers

Traditional and Digital Biomarkers: Two Worlds Apart?

Lmar M Babrak, Joseph Menetski, Michael Rebhan, Giovanni Nisato, Marc Zinggeler, Noé Brasier, Katja Baerenfaller, Thomas Brenzikofer, Laurenz Baltzer, Christian Vogler and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digital biomarkers. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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.

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

89 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

29 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

15 authors.

Lmar M BabrakFHNW University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Muttenz, Switzerland.
Joseph MenetskiFoundation for the National Institutes of Health, North Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Michael RebhanNovartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Basel, Switzerland.
Giovanni NisatoHealth Hacking Lab, Basel, Switzerland.
Marc ZinggelerCSEM, Muttenz, Switzerland.
Noé BrasierCMIO Research Group, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Katja BaerenfallerSwiss Institute of Allergy and Asthma Research (SIAF), University of Zurich, and Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (SIB), Davos, Switzerland.
Thomas BrenzikoferDayOne, BaselArea. Swiss, Basel, Switzerland.
Laurenz BaltzerS. Karger AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Christian VoglerAdvancience AG, Allschwil, Switzerland.
Leo GschwindAdvancience AG, Allschwil, Switzerland.
Cornelia SchneiderClinical Pharmacy and Epidemiology, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Fabian StreiffDayOne, BaselArea. Swiss, Basel, Switzerland.
Peter M A GroenenDayOne, BaselArea. Swiss, Basel, Switzerland.
Enkelejda MihoFHNW University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Muttenz, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The identification and application of biomarkers in the clinical and medical fields has an enormous impact on society. The increase of digital devices and the rise in popularity of health-related mobile apps has produced a new trove of biomarkers in large, diverse, and complex data. However, the unclear definition of digital biomarkers, population groups, and their intersection with traditional biomarkers hinders their discovery and validation. We have identified current issues in the field of digital biomarkers and put forth suggestions to address them during the DayOne Workshop with participants from academia and industry. We have found similarities and differences between traditional and digital biomarkers in order to synchronize semantics, define unique features, review current regulatory procedures, and describe novel applications that enable precision medicine.

Indexed as

Biomarker classificationDigital biomarkersDigital healthSemanticsTraditional biomarkers

Identifiers

PMID32095769
PMCPMC7015353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.