Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The Best Digital Biomarkers Papers of 2017
Snyder CW, Dorsey ER, Atreja A.. Digital biomarkers, 2018-05-30
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Snyder, C. W., Dorsey, E. R., & Atreja, A. (2018). The Best Digital Biomarkers Papers of 2017. Digital biomarkers. https://doi.org/10.1159/000489224
Vancouver
Snyder CW, Dorsey ER, Atreja A. The Best Digital Biomarkers Papers of 2017. Digital biomarkers. 2018. doi:10.1159/000489224. PMID: 32095757.
BibTeX
@article{snyder2018-32095757,
author = {Snyder, C. W. and Dorsey, E. R. and Atreja, A.},
title = {{The Best Digital Biomarkers Papers of 2017}},
journal = {Digital biomarkers},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1159/000489224},
pmid = {32095757},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000489224}
}
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
- 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.
Study details
- Participants1,290
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Digital biomarkers) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,290 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 32095757) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.