Traditional and Digital Biomarkers: Two Worlds Apart?

The identification and application of biomarkers in the clinical and medical fields has an enormous impact on society. The increase of digital devices and the rise in popularity of health-related mobile apps has produced a new trove of biomarkers in large, diverse, and complex data. However, the unclear definition of digital biomarkers, population groups, and their intersection with traditional biomarkers hinders their discovery and validation. We have identified current issues in the field of digital biomarkers and put forth suggestions to address them during the DayOne Workshop with participants from academia and industry. We have found similarities and differences between traditional and digital biomarkers in order to synchronize semantics, define unique features, review current regulatory procedures, and describe novel applications that enable precision medicine.

[1]  S. Grandy,et al.  The relationship of body mass index to diabetes mellitus, hypertension and dyslipidaemia: comparison of data from two national surveys , 2007, International journal of clinical practice.

[2]  R. Carney,et al.  Depression and heart rate variability in patients with coronary heart disease , 2009, Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.

[3]  A. Benetos,et al.  Heart rate as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. , 2009, Progress in cardiovascular diseases.

[4]  Joseph V Bonventre,et al.  Next-generation biomarkers for detecting kidney toxicity , 2010, Nature Biotechnology.

[5]  Mohammad H. Mahoor,et al.  Social risk and depression: Evidence from manual and automatic facial expression analysis , 2013, 2013 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG).

[6]  Anna Tostevin,et al.  An observational multi-cohort study on the use and safety of Combivir scored tablets among HIV-infected children and adolescents. Report to the European Medicines Agency (EMA)/ Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) , 2014 .

[7]  K. Volpp,et al.  Accuracy of smartphone applications and wearable devices for tracking physical activity data. , 2015, JAMA.

[8]  M. Sigman,et al.  Automated analysis of free speech predicts psychosis onset in high-risk youths , 2015, npj Schizophrenia.

[9]  Daniel F Hayes,et al.  Biomarker validation and testing , 2015, Molecular oncology.

[10]  Thea J. M. Kooiman,et al.  Reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers , 2015, BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation.

[11]  Frederick A. Masoudi,et al.  Isosorbide Mononitrate in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction , 2015 .

[12]  Max A. Little,et al.  Wearable Sensors in Huntington Disease: A Pilot Study. , 2016, Journal of Huntington's disease.

[13]  Lars Vedel Kessing,et al.  Behavioral activities collected through smartphones and the association with illness activity in bipolar disorder , 2016, International journal of methods in psychiatric research.

[14]  John T. O'Brien,et al.  The midlife cognitive profiles of adults at high risk of late-onset Alzheimer's disease: The PREVENT study , 2017, Alzheimer's & Dementia.

[15]  A. Schulze-Bonhage,et al.  Wearable technology in epilepsy: The views of patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals , 2018, Epilepsy & Behavior.

[16]  Ioannis Tarnanas,et al.  Digital technologies as biomarkers, clinical outcomes assessment, and recruitment tools in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials , 2018, Alzheimer's & dementia.

[17]  Graham B Jones,et al.  Harnessing the Digital Exhaust: Incorporating Wellness into the Pharma Model , 2018, Digital Biomarkers.

[18]  Anirvan Ghosh,et al.  Evaluation of smartphone‐based testing to generate exploratory outcome measures in a phase 1 Parkinson's disease clinical trial , 2018, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.

[19]  S. Kar,et al.  Cystatin C Is a More Reliable Biomarker for Determining eGFR to Support Drug Development Studies , 2018, Journal of clinical pharmacology.

[20]  John Prince,et al.  Big data in Parkinson’s disease: using smartphones to remotely detect longitudinal disease phenotypes , 2018, Physiological measurement.

[21]  Suchi Saria,et al.  Using Smartphones and Machine Learning to Quantify Parkinson Disease Severity: The Mobile Parkinson Disease Score , 2018, JAMA neurology.

[22]  John L Allinson.  Clinical biomarker validation. , 2018, Bioanalysis.

[23]  Virginia B. Kraus,et al.  Biomarkers as drug development tools: discovery, validation, qualification and use , 2018, Nature Reviews Rheumatology.

[24]  Oliver B. Regele,et al.  Digital biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease: the mobile/wearable devices opportunity , 2019, npj Digital Medicine.

[25]  Jennifer C. Goldsack,et al.  Digital Medicine: A Primer on Measurement , 2019, Digital Biomarkers.

[26]  N. Jacobson,et al.  Digital biomarkers of mood disorders and symptom change , 2019, npj Digital Medicine.