Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40463636›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)

Digital biomarkers: Redefining clinical outcomes and the concept of meaningful change.

Maria Florencia Iulita, Emmanuel Streel, John Harrison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors.

Maria Florencia IulitaAltoida Inc. Washington District of Columbia USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3360-4498
Emmanuel StreelAltoida Inc. Washington District of Columbia USA.
John HarrisonScottish Brain Sciences Gyleview House South Gyle Edinburgh UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

MCID (minimal clinically important difference) is a patient-centered concept used in clinical research that represents the smallest change that someone living with Alzheimer's disease would identify as important. There are several challenges associated with the universal application of this construct. Alzheimer's disease progresses differently for each individual, complicating the establishment of a universal standard that accounts for individual-level issues. Alzheimer's disease is also a gradual and evolving disorder, and what is perceived as clinically meaningful can vary significantly at early and late disease stages. People living with Alzheimer's disease and caregivers may have differing perspectives on the benefits of treatment outcomes, making it more challenging to establish an appropriate MCID. Moreover, Alzheimer's trials rely on a variety of tests to evaluate cognitive and functional impairments. However, these tests often lack sensitivity to early-stage changes and are affected by variability in rater rankings. Digital biomarkers and advanced health technologies have emerged as a hot topic in modern medicine. They offer a promising approach for detecting real-time, objective clinical differences and improving patient outcomes by enabling continuous monitoring, individualized assessments, and leveraging artificial intelligence learning for complex analytical predictions. However, while these advancements hold great potential, they also raise important considerations around standardization, accuracy, and integration into current clinical frameworks. As new technologies are introduced alongside evolving regulatory frameworks, the primary focus must remain on outcomes that truly matter to people living with Alzheimer's disease and their caregivers, ensuring that the principle of clinical meaningfulness is not lost. Highlights: Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) represents the smallest change in a patient's condition that would be considered meaningful, but defining this for Alzheimer's disease is challenging due to its heterogeneity.The perception of what is clinically meaningful may differ at the individual level, at different disease stages within the same individual, and between patient and caregiver.Traditional tests used as endpoints in Alzheimer's trials lack the sensitivity to detect subtle changes and are limited by range restrictions, making them less effective for accurately capturing treatment efficacy.Digital biomarkers and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven health technologies may offer the potential to enhance the detection of clinically meaningful changes by providing continuous, objective monitoring and advanced analytics for individualized patient assessments.Both the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) are playing pivotal roles in advancing the use of digital health technologies, facilitating the evolution of regulatory frameworks to ensure these innovations are effectively integrated into clinical research and practice.

Indexed as

Alzheimer's diseaseartificial intelligenceclinical trialsdigital biomarkersmachine learningmild cognitive impairmentminimal clinically important difference (MCID)treatment response

Identifiers

PMID40463636
PMCPMC12130567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.