Evaluation of smartphone‐based testing to generate exploratory outcome measures in a phase 1 Parkinson's disease clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ubiquitous digital technologies such as smartphone sensors promise to fundamentally change biomedical research and treatment monitoring in neurological diseases such as PD, creating a new domain of digital biomarkers. OBJECTIVES: The present study assessed the feasibility, reliability, and validity of smartphone-based digital biomarkers of PD in a clinical trial setting. METHODS: During a 6-month, phase 1b clinical trial with 44 Parkinson participants, and an independent, 45-day study in 35 age-matched healthy controls, participants completed six daily motor active tests (sustained phonation, rest tremor, postural tremor, finger-tapping, balance, and gait), then carried the smartphone during the day (passive monitoring), enabling assessment of, for example, time spent walking and sit-to-stand transitions by gyroscopic and accelerometer data. RESULTS: Adherence was acceptable: Patients completed active testing on average 3.5 of 7 times/week. Sensor-based features showed moderate-to-excellent test-retest reliability (average intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.84). All active and passive features significantly differentiated PD from controls with P < 0.005. All active test features except sustained phonation were significantly related to corresponding International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored UPRDS clinical severity ratings. On passive monitoring, time spent walking had a significant (P = 0.005) relationship with average postural instability and gait disturbance scores. Of note, for all smartphone active and passive features except postural tremor, the monitoring procedure detected abnormalities even in those Parkinson participants scored as having no signs in the corresponding International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored UPRDS items at the site visit. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the feasibility of smartphone-based digital biomarkers and indicate that smartphone-sensor technologies provide reliable, valid, clinically meaningful, and highly sensitive phenotypic data in Parkinson's disease. © 2018 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.064 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".