ArticleDigital biomarkers2020
The Path Forward for Digital Measures: Suppressing the Desire to Compare Apples and Pineapples.
Article in Digital biomarkers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital Phenotyping for Stress, Anxiety, and Mild Depression: Systematic Literature Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Pooled it
- Using machine learning to identify Parkinson's disease severity subtypes with multimodal data.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Association of real life postural transitions kinematics with fatigue in neurodegenerative and immune diseases.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Do Measures of Real-World Physical Behavior Provide Insights Into the Well-Being and Physical Function of Cancer Survivors? Cross-Sectional Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2024Article
- Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life With Multimodal Data: Viewpoint.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Estimating the Burden of Influenza-like Illness on Daily Activity at the Population Scale Using Commercial Wearable Sensors.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Digital Biomarkers in Psychiatric Research: Data Protection Qualifications in a Complex Ecosystem.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Review
- Beyond the Therapist's Office: Merging Measurement-Based Care and Digital Medicine in the Real World.Digital biomarkersReview
- The Future of Digital Health: Meeting Report.Digital biomarkersArticle
- Evaluation, Acceptance, and Qualification of Digital Measures: From Proof of Concept to Endpoint.Digital biomarkersReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital measures are becoming more prevalent in clinical development. Methods for robust evaluation are increasingly well defined, yet the primary barrier for digital measures to transition beyond exploratory usage often relies on a comparison to the existing standards. This article focuses on how researchers should approach the complex issue of comparing across assessment modalities. We discuss comparisons of subjective versus objective assessments, or performance-based versus behavioral measures, and we pay particular attention to the situation where the expected association may be poor or nonlinear. We propose that, rather than seeking to replace the standard, research should focus on a structured understanding of how the new measure augments established assessments, with the ultimate goal of developing a more complete understanding of what is meaningful to patients.
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.