NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundUbiquitous 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.ObjectivesThe present study assessed the feasibility, reliability, and validity of smartphone-based digital biomarkers of PD in a clinical trial setting.MethodsDuring 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.ResultsAdherence 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 ConclusionsThese 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.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.