Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38589213›Full record

ReviewBMJ health & care informatics2024

Definitions of digital biomarkers: a systematic mapping of the biomedical literature.

Ana Karen Macias Alonso, Julian Hirt, Tim Woelfle, Perrine Janiaud, Lars G Hemkens

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ health & care informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
34.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Ana Karen Macias AlonsoDepartment of Applied Natural Sciences, Technische Hochschule Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Julian HirtPragmatic Evidence Lab, Research Center for Clinical Neuroimmunology and Neuroscience Basel (RC2NB), University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6589-3936
Tim WoelflePragmatic Evidence Lab, Research Center for Clinical Neuroimmunology and Neuroscience Basel (RC2NB), University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Perrine JaniaudPragmatic Evidence Lab, Research Center for Clinical Neuroimmunology and Neuroscience Basel (RC2NB), University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Lars G HemkensPragmatic Evidence Lab, Research Center for Clinical Neuroimmunology and Neuroscience Basel (RC2NB), University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland lars.hemkens@usb.ch.
University of Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnological devices such as smartphones, wearables and virtual assistants enable health data collection, serving as digital alternatives to conventional biomarkers. We aimed to provide a systematic overview of emerging literature on 'digital biomarkers,' covering definitions, features and citations in biomedical research.

methodsWe analysed all articles in PubMed that used 'digital biomarker(s)' in title or abstract, considering any study involving humans and any review, editorial, perspective or opinion-based articles up to 8 March 2023. We systematically extracted characteristics of publications and research studies, and any definitions and features of 'digital biomarkers' mentioned. We described the most influential literature on digital biomarkers and their definitions using thematic categorisations of definitions considering the Food and Drug Administration Biomarkers, EndpointS and other Tools framework (ie, data type, data collection method, purpose of biomarker), analysing structural similarity of definitions by performing text and citation analyses.

resultsWe identified 415 articles using 'digital biomarker' between 2014 and 2023 (median 2021). The majority (283 articles; 68%) were primary research. Notably, 287 articles (69%) did not provide a definition of digital biomarkers. Among the 128 articles with definitions, there were 127 different ones. Of these, 78 considered data collection, 56 data type, 50 purpose and 23 included all three components. Those 128 articles with a definition had a median of 6 citations, with the top 10 each presenting distinct definitions.

conclusionsThe definitions of digital biomarkers vary significantly, indicating a lack of consensus in this emerging field. Our overview highlights key defining characteristics, which could guide the development of a more harmonised accepted definition.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBiomedical ResearchHumansBiomarkersMedical Informatics

Identifiers

PMID38589213
PMCPMC11015196
OpenAlexW4394581322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.