ArticleJournal of neurology2021
Digital biomarkers can highlight subtle clinical differences in radiologically isolated syndrome compared to healthy controls.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensors in Multiple Sclerosis.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- Wearable Sensor Technologies to Assess Motor Functions in People With Multiple Sclerosis: Systematic Scoping Review and Perspective.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the use of digital biomarkers to distinguish healthy controls (HC) from subjects with a radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS).
methodsWe developed a smartphone application called MS Screen Test (MSST) to explore several dimensions of the neurological exam such as finger tapping speed, agility, hand synchronization, low contrast vision and cognition during a short evaluation. This app was tested on a cohort of healthy volunteers including a subset of subjects who underwent two evaluations on the same day to assess reproducibility. In a second step, the app was tested on a cohort of RIS subjects. Performances of RIS subjects were compared with age and genre-matched HC.
resultsHC underwent two consecutive evaluations on MSST. The analysis showed good reproducibility for all measures. Then 21 RIS subjects were compared to 32 matched HC. Compared to HC, we found that RIS subjects had a lower finger tapping speed on the dominant hand (5.6 versus 6.5 taps per second; p = 0.005), a longer inter hand interval during the hand synchronization task (14.4 versus 11.3 ms; p = 0.03) and significantly poorer scores on the low contrast vision and cognition tests.
conclusionMSST only requires a smartphone to obtain digital biomarkers relative to several dimensions of the neurological examination. Our results highlighted subtle differences between HC and RIS subjects. We plan to evaluate this tool in MS patients, which will allow us to get a much larger sample of subjects, to determine whether digital biomarkers can predict disease course.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.