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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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