数字生物标志物的定义:对生物医学文献的系统梳理

IF 4.1 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Ana Karen Macias Alonso, Julian Hirt, Tim Woelfle, Perrine Janiaud, Lars G Hemkens
{"title":"数字生物标志物的定义:对生物医学文献的系统梳理","authors":"Ana Karen Macias Alonso, Julian Hirt, Tim Woelfle, Perrine Janiaud, Lars G Hemkens","doi":"10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Technological devices such as smartphones, wearables and virtual assistants enable health data collection, serving as digital alternatives to conventional biomarkers. We aimed to provide a systematic overview of emerging literature on ‘digital biomarkers,’ covering definitions, features and citations in biomedical research. Methods We analysed all articles in PubMed that used ‘digital biomarker(s)’ in title or abstract, considering any study involving humans and any review, editorial, perspective or opinion-based articles up to 8 March 2023. We systematically extracted characteristics of publications and research studies, and any definitions and features of ‘digital biomarkers’ mentioned. We described the most influential literature on digital biomarkers and their definitions using thematic categorisations of definitions considering the Food and Drug Administration Biomarkers, EndpointS and other Tools framework (ie, data type, data collection method, purpose of biomarker), analysing structural similarity of definitions by performing text and citation analyses. Results We identified 415 articles using ‘digital biomarker’ between 2014 and 2023 (median 2021). The majority (283 articles; 68%) were primary research. Notably, 287 articles (69%) did not provide a definition of digital biomarkers. Among the 128 articles with definitions, there were 127 different ones. Of these, 78 considered data collection, 56 data type, 50 purpose and 23 included all three components. Those 128 articles with a definition had a median of 6 citations, with the top 10 each presenting distinct definitions. Conclusions The definitions of digital biomarkers vary significantly, indicating a lack of consensus in this emerging field. Our overview highlights key defining characteristics, which could guide the development of a more harmonised accepted definition. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.","PeriodicalId":9050,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Health & Care Informatics","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Definitions of digital biomarkers: a systematic mapping of the biomedical literature\",\"authors\":\"Ana Karen Macias Alonso, Julian Hirt, Tim Woelfle, Perrine Janiaud, Lars G Hemkens\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100914\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Technological devices such as smartphones, wearables and virtual assistants enable health data collection, serving as digital alternatives to conventional biomarkers. We aimed to provide a systematic overview of emerging literature on ‘digital biomarkers,’ covering definitions, features and citations in biomedical research. Methods We analysed all articles in PubMed that used ‘digital biomarker(s)’ in title or abstract, considering any study involving humans and any review, editorial, perspective or opinion-based articles up to 8 March 2023. We systematically extracted characteristics of publications and research studies, and any definitions and features of ‘digital biomarkers’ mentioned. We described the most influential literature on digital biomarkers and their definitions using thematic categorisations of definitions considering the Food and Drug Administration Biomarkers, EndpointS and other Tools framework (ie, data type, data collection method, purpose of biomarker), analysing structural similarity of definitions by performing text and citation analyses. Results We identified 415 articles using ‘digital biomarker’ between 2014 and 2023 (median 2021). The majority (283 articles; 68%) were primary research. Notably, 287 articles (69%) did not provide a definition of digital biomarkers. Among the 128 articles with definitions, there were 127 different ones. Of these, 78 considered data collection, 56 data type, 50 purpose and 23 included all three components. Those 128 articles with a definition had a median of 6 citations, with the top 10 each presenting distinct definitions. Conclusions The definitions of digital biomarkers vary significantly, indicating a lack of consensus in this emerging field. Our overview highlights key defining characteristics, which could guide the development of a more harmonised accepted definition. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9050,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Health & Care Informatics\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Health & Care Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100914\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Health & Care Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100914","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 智能手机、可穿戴设备和虚拟助手等技术设备实现了健康数据的收集,成为传统生物标志物的数字替代品。我们旨在对有关 "数字生物标记物 "的新兴文献进行系统性概述,包括生物医学研究中的定义、特征和引用情况。方法 我们分析了 PubMed 上所有在标题或摘要中使用 "数字生物标记物 "的文章,考虑了截至 2023 年 3 月 8 日所有涉及人类的研究以及任何评论、社论、观点或意见性文章。我们系统地提取了出版物和研究的特征,以及所提及的 "数字生物标记 "的定义和特征。考虑到食品与药物管理局生物标记物、端点和其他工具框架(即数据类型、数据收集方法、生物标记物的目的),我们对定义进行了主题分类(即数据类型、数据收集方法、生物标记物的目的),并通过文本和引文分析对定义的结构相似性进行了分析,从而描述了有关数字生物标记物及其定义的最有影响力的文献。结果 我们在 2014 年至 2023 年(中位数为 2021 年)期间发现了 415 篇使用 "数字生物标记 "的文章。其中大部分(283 篇;68%)为初级研究。值得注意的是,有 287 篇文章(69%)没有提供数字生物标记物的定义。在有定义的 128 篇文章中,有 127 种不同的定义。其中,78 篇文章考虑了数据收集,56 篇文章考虑了数据类型,50 篇文章考虑了目的,23 篇文章考虑了所有三个组成部分。在这 128 篇有定义的文章中,引用次数中位数为 6 次,前 10 篇文章分别给出了不同的定义。结论 数字生物标记物的定义差异很大,表明这一新兴领域缺乏共识。我们的概述强调了关键的定义特征,这些特征可以指导制定更加统一的公认定义。与研究相关的所有数据均包含在文章中或作为在线补充信息上传。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Definitions of digital biomarkers: a systematic mapping of the biomedical literature
Background Technological devices such as smartphones, wearables and virtual assistants enable health data collection, serving as digital alternatives to conventional biomarkers. We aimed to provide a systematic overview of emerging literature on ‘digital biomarkers,’ covering definitions, features and citations in biomedical research. Methods We analysed all articles in PubMed that used ‘digital biomarker(s)’ in title or abstract, considering any study involving humans and any review, editorial, perspective or opinion-based articles up to 8 March 2023. We systematically extracted characteristics of publications and research studies, and any definitions and features of ‘digital biomarkers’ mentioned. We described the most influential literature on digital biomarkers and their definitions using thematic categorisations of definitions considering the Food and Drug Administration Biomarkers, EndpointS and other Tools framework (ie, data type, data collection method, purpose of biomarker), analysing structural similarity of definitions by performing text and citation analyses. Results We identified 415 articles using ‘digital biomarker’ between 2014 and 2023 (median 2021). The majority (283 articles; 68%) were primary research. Notably, 287 articles (69%) did not provide a definition of digital biomarkers. Among the 128 articles with definitions, there were 127 different ones. Of these, 78 considered data collection, 56 data type, 50 purpose and 23 included all three components. Those 128 articles with a definition had a median of 6 citations, with the top 10 each presenting distinct definitions. Conclusions The definitions of digital biomarkers vary significantly, indicating a lack of consensus in this emerging field. Our overview highlights key defining characteristics, which could guide the development of a more harmonised accepted definition. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
4.90%
发文量
40
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信