ArticleDigital biomarkers
Analysis Method of Real-World Digital Biomarkers for Clinical Impact in Cancer Patients.
Article in Digital biomarkers. 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.
- From Innovation to Integration: Bridging the Gap Between IoMT Technologies and Real-World Health Management Systems.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Tolerability and the Accelerome: Open-Source Wrist Accelerometry Relates to Symptom Burden in Androgen Ablated Older Men with Prostate Cancer.Digital biomarkersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Wearable technologies can enhance measurements completed from home by participants in decentralized clinical trials. These measurements have shown promise in monitoring patient wellness outside the clinical setting. However, there are challenges in handling data and its interpretation when using consumer wearables, requiring input from statisticians and data scientists. This article describes three methods to estimate daily steps to address gaps in data from the Apple Watch in cancer patients and uses one of these methods in an analysis of the association between daily step count estimates and clinical events for these patients. Methods: A cohort of 50 cancer patients used the DigiBioMarC app integrated with an Apple Watch for 28 days. We identified different gap types in watch data based on their length and context to estimate daily steps. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine the association between step count and time to death or time to first clinical event. Decision tree modeling and participant clustering were also employed to identify digital biomarkers of physical activity that were predictive of clinical event occurrence and hazard ratio to clinical events, respectively. Results: Among the three methods explored to address missing steps, the method that identified different step data gap types according to their duration and context yielded the most reasonable estimate of daily steps. Ten hours of waking time was used to differentiate between sufficient and insufficient measurement days. Daily step count on sufficient days was the most promising predictor of time to first clinical event ( Conclusion: We have developed an effective way to estimate daily steps of consumer wearable data containing unknown data gaps. Daily step counts on days with sufficient sampling are a strong predictor of the timing and occurrence of clinical events, with individuals exhibiting higher daily step counts having reduced hazard of death or clinical events.
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.