Cited by 33Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring

PERSONALIZED HYPOTHESIS TESTS FOR DETECTING MEDICATION RESPONSE IN PARKINSON DISEASE PATIENTS USING iPHONE SENSOR DATA

Open access
CHAIBUB NETO, ELIAS, BOT, BRIAN M., PERUMAL, THANNEER, OMBERG, LARSSON, GUINNEY, JUSTIN, KELLEN, MIKE, KLEIN, ARNO, FRIEND, STEPHEN H. +1 more·2016·Biocomputing 2016

Abstract

We propose hypothesis tests for detecting dopaminergic medication response in Parkinson disease patients, using longitudinal sensor data collected by smartphones. The processed data is composed of multiple features extracted from active tapping tasks performed by the participant on a daily basis, before and after medication, over several months. Each extracted feature corresponds to a time series of measurements annotated according to whether the measurement was taken before or after the patient has taken his/her medication. Even though the data is longitudinal in nature, we show that simple hypothesis tests for detecting medication response, which ignore the serial correlation structure of the data, are still statistically valid, showing type I error rates at the nominal level. We propose two distinct personalized testing approaches. In the first, we combine multiple feature-specific tests into a single union-intersection test. In the second, we construct personalized classifiers of the before/after medication labels using all the extracted features of a given participant, and test the null hypothesis that the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the classifier is equal to 1/2. We compare the statistical power of the personalized classifier tests and personalized union-intersection tests in a simulation study, and illustrate the performance of the proposed tests using data from mPower Parkinsons disease study, recently launched as part of Apples Research…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1142/9789814749411_0026

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 2 · Cited by 33

Authors
CHAIBUB NETO, E., BOT, B. M., PERUMAL, T., OMBERG, L., GUINNEY, J., KELLEN, M., KLEIN, A., FRIEND, S. H., & TRISTER, A. D.
Affiliations
  • Sage Bionetworks, 1100 Fairview Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109, USA
  • Sage Bionetworks (US)
Venue
Biocomputing 2016
Published
2015-11-18
Volume
21
Pages
273-84
OpenAlex
W2328885510
Cited by
33
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4
FWCI
9.86
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing (PSB) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Advanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Keywords
Parkinson's disease, smartphone sensor data, hypothesis testing, union-intersection tests, longitudinal data, serial correlation, ResearchKit, statistical power
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Parkinson Disease, Models, Statistical, Dopamine Agents, Drug Monitoring, Computational Biology, Cell Phone, Precision Medicine, Remote Sensing Technology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review