Cargando…
Fit‐for‐Purpose Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Leveraging the Laboratory Biomarker Experience
Biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs) are becoming increasingly common to aid data collection in clinical trials and practice. The state of BioMeTs, and associated digitally measured biomarkers, is highly reminiscent of the field of laboratory biomarkers 2 decades ago. In this review, we have...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7877826/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32770726 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cts.12865 |
_version_ | 1783650245359435776 |
---|---|
author | Godfrey, Alan Vandendriessche, Benjamin Bakker, Jessie P. Fitzer‐Attas, Cheryl Gujar, Ninad Hobbs, Matthew Liu, Qi Northcott, Carrie A. Parks, Virginia Wood, William A. Zipunnikov, Vadim Wagner, John A. Izmailova, Elena S. |
author_facet | Godfrey, Alan Vandendriessche, Benjamin Bakker, Jessie P. Fitzer‐Attas, Cheryl Gujar, Ninad Hobbs, Matthew Liu, Qi Northcott, Carrie A. Parks, Virginia Wood, William A. Zipunnikov, Vadim Wagner, John A. Izmailova, Elena S. |
author_sort | Godfrey, Alan |
collection | PubMed |
description | Biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs) are becoming increasingly common to aid data collection in clinical trials and practice. The state of BioMeTs, and associated digitally measured biomarkers, is highly reminiscent of the field of laboratory biomarkers 2 decades ago. In this review, we have summarized and leveraged historical perspectives, and lessons learned from laboratory biomarkers as they apply to BioMeTs. Both categories share common features, including goals and roles in biomedical research, definitions, and many elements of the biomarker qualification framework. They can also be classified based on the underlying technology, each with distinct features and performance characteristics, which require bench and human experimentation testing phases. In contrast to laboratory biomarkers, digitally measured biomarkers require prospective data collection for purposes of analytical validation in human subjects, lack well‐established and widely accepted performance characteristics, require human factor testing, and, for many applications, access to raw (sample‐level) data. Novel methods to handle large volumes of data, as well as security and data rights requirements add to the complexity of this emerging field. Our review highlights the need for a common framework with appropriate vocabulary and standardized approaches to evaluate digitally measured biomarkers, including defining performance characteristics and acceptance criteria. Additionally, the need for human factor testing drives early patient engagement during technology development. Finally, use of BioMeTs requires a relatively high degree of technology literacy among both study participants and healthcare professionals. Transparency of data generation and the need for novel analytical and statistical tools creates opportunities for precompetitive collaborations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7877826 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78778262021-02-18 Fit‐for‐Purpose Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Leveraging the Laboratory Biomarker Experience Godfrey, Alan Vandendriessche, Benjamin Bakker, Jessie P. Fitzer‐Attas, Cheryl Gujar, Ninad Hobbs, Matthew Liu, Qi Northcott, Carrie A. Parks, Virginia Wood, William A. Zipunnikov, Vadim Wagner, John A. Izmailova, Elena S. Clin Transl Sci Reviews Biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs) are becoming increasingly common to aid data collection in clinical trials and practice. The state of BioMeTs, and associated digitally measured biomarkers, is highly reminiscent of the field of laboratory biomarkers 2 decades ago. In this review, we have summarized and leveraged historical perspectives, and lessons learned from laboratory biomarkers as they apply to BioMeTs. Both categories share common features, including goals and roles in biomedical research, definitions, and many elements of the biomarker qualification framework. They can also be classified based on the underlying technology, each with distinct features and performance characteristics, which require bench and human experimentation testing phases. In contrast to laboratory biomarkers, digitally measured biomarkers require prospective data collection for purposes of analytical validation in human subjects, lack well‐established and widely accepted performance characteristics, require human factor testing, and, for many applications, access to raw (sample‐level) data. Novel methods to handle large volumes of data, as well as security and data rights requirements add to the complexity of this emerging field. Our review highlights the need for a common framework with appropriate vocabulary and standardized approaches to evaluate digitally measured biomarkers, including defining performance characteristics and acceptance criteria. Additionally, the need for human factor testing drives early patient engagement during technology development. Finally, use of BioMeTs requires a relatively high degree of technology literacy among both study participants and healthcare professionals. Transparency of data generation and the need for novel analytical and statistical tools creates opportunities for precompetitive collaborations. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-08-25 2021-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7877826/ /pubmed/32770726 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cts.12865 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Reviews Godfrey, Alan Vandendriessche, Benjamin Bakker, Jessie P. Fitzer‐Attas, Cheryl Gujar, Ninad Hobbs, Matthew Liu, Qi Northcott, Carrie A. Parks, Virginia Wood, William A. Zipunnikov, Vadim Wagner, John A. Izmailova, Elena S. Fit‐for‐Purpose Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Leveraging the Laboratory Biomarker Experience |
title | Fit‐for‐Purpose Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Leveraging the Laboratory Biomarker Experience |
title_full | Fit‐for‐Purpose Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Leveraging the Laboratory Biomarker Experience |
title_fullStr | Fit‐for‐Purpose Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Leveraging the Laboratory Biomarker Experience |
title_full_unstemmed | Fit‐for‐Purpose Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Leveraging the Laboratory Biomarker Experience |
title_short | Fit‐for‐Purpose Biometric Monitoring Technologies: Leveraging the Laboratory Biomarker Experience |
title_sort | fit‐for‐purpose biometric monitoring technologies: leveraging the laboratory biomarker experience |
topic | Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7877826/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32770726 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cts.12865 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT godfreyalan fitforpurposebiometricmonitoringtechnologiesleveragingthelaboratorybiomarkerexperience AT vandendriesschebenjamin fitforpurposebiometricmonitoringtechnologiesleveragingthelaboratorybiomarkerexperience AT bakkerjessiep fitforpurposebiometricmonitoringtechnologiesleveragingthelaboratorybiomarkerexperience AT fitzerattascheryl fitforpurposebiometricmonitoringtechnologiesleveragingthelaboratorybiomarkerexperience AT gujarninad fitforpurposebiometricmonitoringtechnologiesleveragingthelaboratorybiomarkerexperience AT hobbsmatthew fitforpurposebiometricmonitoringtechnologiesleveragingthelaboratorybiomarkerexperience AT liuqi fitforpurposebiometricmonitoringtechnologiesleveragingthelaboratorybiomarkerexperience AT northcottcarriea fitforpurposebiometricmonitoringtechnologiesleveragingthelaboratorybiomarkerexperience AT parksvirginia fitforpurposebiometricmonitoringtechnologiesleveragingthelaboratorybiomarkerexperience AT woodwilliama fitforpurposebiometricmonitoringtechnologiesleveragingthelaboratorybiomarkerexperience AT zipunnikovvadim fitforpurposebiometricmonitoringtechnologiesleveragingthelaboratorybiomarkerexperience AT wagnerjohna fitforpurposebiometricmonitoringtechnologiesleveragingthelaboratorybiomarkerexperience AT izmailovaelenas fitforpurposebiometricmonitoringtechnologiesleveragingthelaboratorybiomarkerexperience |