Cited by 19Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

The Best Digital Biomarkers Papers of 2017

Open access
Snyder, Christopher W., Dorsey, E. Ray, Atreja, Ashish·2018·Digital Biomarkers

Abstract

The use and evaluation of digital biomarkers, objective and quantifiable measures of biology, and health collected through digital devices is growing rapidly. To highlight some of the most promising work in the field, we have compiled a list of the top digital biomarkers papers from the past year. Eligible papers reported on original research that evaluated a digital sensor (e.g., smartphone, wearable sensor, implantable device) in humans and was published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2017. Nominations were solicited from the editorial board of Digital Biomarkers and supplemented by papers the editorial team identified from Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The editorial board then selected up to ten papers to be recognized among 28 nominations. Here, we present all of the nominated papers and profile the eight that received the most votes. The top eight papers evaluated 1,290 individuals with digital pills, smartwatches, wearable devices, and electronic inhalers in disease states ranging from dementia to diabetes and from Parkinson disease to pain.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000489224

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Current studies that test digital biomarkers are often performed with small sample sizes in the range of tens to hundreds of subjects and tend to show insufficient demographic information on sex and gender.

    “current studies that test digital biomarkers are often performed with small sample sizes in the range of tens to hundreds of subjects and tend to show insufficient demographic information on sex and gender46.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Beaulieu A, Lapointe A, Givigi S, Sillins K, Lavoie A, Tilley K, Le Bel N: Network of wireless medical devices to assess the gait of rehabilitation in patients for walking and running. -2017 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon), Montreal, QC, 2017, pp 1-8.
  2. Boonstra TW, Werner-Seidler A, O'Dea B, Larsen ME, Christensen H: Smartphone app to investigate the rela- tionship between social connectivity and mental health. 2017 39th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Seogwipo, 2017, pp 287-290.- 15

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Snyder, C. W., Dorsey, E. R., & Atreja, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Venue
Digital Biomarkers
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2018-05-30
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
64-73
ISSN
2504-110X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2806112435
Cited by
19
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Digital Biomarkers (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
wearable sensors, smartphone health monitoring, biomedical implants, digital pills, smartwatches, dementia, diabetes mellitus, Parkinson's disease, pain

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