Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Matching science to reality: how to deploy a participant-driven digital brain health platform
Anda-Duran I, Hwang PH, Popp ZT, Low S, Ding H, Rahman S, Igwe A, Kolachalama VB et al.. Frontiers in dementia, 2023-05-05
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction Advances in digital technologies for health research enable opportunities for digital phenotyping of individuals in research and clinical settings. Beyond providing opportunities for advanced data analytics with data science and machine learning approaches, digital technologies offer solutions to several of the existing barriers in research practice that have resulted in biased samples. Methods A participant-driven, precision brain health monitoring digital platform has been introduced to two longitudinal cohort studies, the Boston University Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (BU ADRC) and the Bogalusa Heart Study (BHS). The platform was developed with prioritization of digital data in native format, multiple OS, validity of derived metrics, feasibility and usability. A platform including nine remote technologies and three staff-guided digital assessments has been introduced in the BU ADRC population, including a multimodal smartphone application also introduced to the BHS population. Participants select which technologies they would like to use and can manipulate their personal platform and schedule over time. Results Participants from the BU ADRC are using an average of 5.9 technologies to date, providing strong evidence for the usability of numerous digital technologies in older adult populations. Broad phenotyping of both cohorts is ongoing, with the collection of data spanning cognitive testing, sleep, physical activity, speech, motor activity, cardiovascular health, mood, gait, balance, and more. Several challenges in digital phenotyping implementation in the BU ADRC and the BHS have arisen, and the protocol has been revised and optimized to minimize participant burden while sustaining participant contact and support. Discussion The importance of digital data in its native format, near real-time data access, passive participant engagement, and availability of technologies across OS has been supported by the pattern of participant technology use and adherence across cohorts. The precision brain health monitoring platform will be iteratively adjusted and improved over time. The pragmatic study design enables multimodal digital phenotyping of distinct clinically characterized cohorts in both rural and urban U.S. settings.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Anda-Duran, I., Hwang, P. H., Popp, Z. T., Low, S., Ding, H., Rahman, S., et al. (2023). Matching science to reality: how to deploy a participant-driven digital brain health platform. Frontiers in dementia. https://doi.org/10.3389/frdem.2023.1135451
Vancouver
Anda-Duran I, Hwang PH, Popp ZT, Low S, Ding H, Rahman S, et al. Matching science to reality: how to deploy a participant-driven digital brain health platform. Frontiers in dementia. 2023. doi:10.3389/frdem.2023.1135451. PMID: 38706716.
BibTeX
@article{andaduran2023-38706716,
author = {Anda-Duran, I. and Hwang, P. H. and Popp, Z. T. and Low, S. and Ding, H. and Rahman, S. and Igwe, A. and Kolachalama, V. B. and others},
title = {{Matching science to reality: how to deploy a participant-driven digital brain health platform}},
journal = {Frontiers in dementia},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.3389/frdem.2023.1135451},
pmid = {38706716},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/frdem.2023.1135451}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Participants from the BU ADRC are using an average of 5.9 technologies to date, providing strong evidence for the usability of numerous digital technologies in older adult populations.
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 59/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in dementia) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38706716) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 34 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100. |
| Total | 59 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “reality”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reality”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.