Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38753605›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2024

Mapping the ethical landscape of digital biomarkers: A scoping review.

Mattia Andreoletti, Luana Haller, Effy Vayena, Alessandro Blasimme

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

4 authors.

Mattia AndreolettiDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1880-0770
Luana HallerDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Effy VayenaDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Alessandro BlasimmeDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5908-2002

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the evolving landscape of digital medicine, digital biomarkers have emerged as a transformative source of health data, positioning them as an indispensable element for the future of the discipline. This necessitates a comprehensive exploration of the ethical complexities and challenges intrinsic to this cutting-edge technology. To address this imperative, we conducted a scoping review, seeking to distill the scientific literature exploring the ethical dimensions of the use of digital biomarkers. By closely scrutinizing the literature, this review aims to bring to light the underlying ethical issues associated with the development and integration of digital biomarkers into medical practice.

Identifiers

PMID38753605
PMCPMC11098308

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.