Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Reproducibility and replicability of high-frequency, in-home digital biomarkers in reducing sample sizes for clinical trials
Chao-Yi Wu, Zachary Beattie, Nora Mattek, Nicole Sharma, Jeffrey Kaye, Hiroko H Dodge. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2021-12-31
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
For the reproducibility, identical P-values and slope estimates were found with both digital biomarkers and neuropsychological test measures between the previous and current studies. As for the replicability, a greater correlation was found between original and replicated sample size estimates for digital biomarkers (r = 0.87, P < .001) than neuropsychological test outcomes (r = 0.75, P < .001). Reproducibility and replicability of digital biomarker analyses are feasible and encouraged to establish the reliability of findings.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wu, C.-Y., Beattie, Z., Mattek, N., Sharma, N., Kaye, J., & Dodge, H. H. (2021). Reproducibility and replicability of high-frequency, in-home digital biomarkers in reducing sample sizes for clinical trials. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.12220
Vancouver
Wu C.-Y, Beattie Z, Mattek N, Sharma N, Kaye J, Dodge HH. Reproducibility and replicability of high-frequency, in-home digital biomarkers in reducing sample sizes for clinical trials. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). 2021. doi:10.1002/trc2.12220. PMID: 35005204.
BibTeX
@article{wu2021-35005204,
author = {Wu, Chao-Yi and Beattie, Zachary and Mattek, Nora and Sharma, Nicole and Kaye, Jeffrey and Dodge, Hiroko H},
title = {{Reproducibility and replicability of high-frequency, in-home digital biomarkers in reducing sample sizes for clinical trials}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (New York, N. Y.)},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1002/trc2.12220},
pmid = {35005204},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.12220}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- For the reproducibility, identical P-values and slope estimates were found with both digital biomarkers and neuropsychological test measures between the previous and current studies.
- As for the replicability, a greater correlation was found between original and replicated sample size estimates for digital biomarkers (r = 0.87, P < .001) than neuropsychological test outcomes (r = 0.75, P < .001).
- Reproducibility and replicability of digital biomarker analyses are feasible and encouraged to establish the reliability of findings.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — 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 35005204) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 25 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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 “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.