Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33251474›Full record

ReviewDigital biomarkers

Evaluation of Speech-Based Digital Biomarkers: Review and Recommendations.

Jessica Robin, John E Harrison, Liam D Kaufman, Frank Rudzicz, William Simpson, Maria Yancheva

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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. Cited by 81 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing 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

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

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

21 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

6 authors.

Jessica RobinWinterlight Labs, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
John E HarrisonMetis Cognition Ltd., Park House, Kilmington Common, Warminster, United Kingdom.
Liam D KaufmanWinterlight Labs, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Frank RudziczLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
William SimpsonWinterlight Labs, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Maria YanchevaWinterlight Labs, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Speech represents a promising novel biomarker by providing a window into brain health, as shown by its disruption in various neurological and psychiatric diseases. As with many novel digital biomarkers, however, rigorous evaluation is currently lacking and is required for these measures to be used effectively and safely. This paper outlines and provides examples from the literature of evaluation steps for speech-based digital biomarkers, based on the recent V3 framework (Goldsack et al., 2020). The V3 framework describes 3 components of evaluation for digital biomarkers: verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation. Verification includes assessing the quality of speech recordings and comparing the effects of hardware and recording conditions on the integrity of the recordings. Analytical validation includes checking the accuracy and reliability of data processing and computed measures, including understanding test-retest reliability, demographic variability, and comparing measures to reference standards. Clinical validity involves verifying the correspondence of a measure to clinical outcomes which can include diagnosis, disease progression, or response to treatment. For each of these sections, we provide recommendations for the types of evaluation necessary for speech-based biomarkers and review published examples. The examples in this paper focus on speech-based biomarkers, but they can be used as a template for digital biomarker development more generally.

Indexed as

DementiaDigital biomarkersDigital healthLanguageSpeechValidation

Identifiers

PMID33251474
PMCPMC7670321

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.