BioMeT and algorithm challenges: A proposed digital standardized evaluation framework

Technology is advancing at an extraordinary rate. Continuous flows of novel data are being generated with the potential to revolutionize how we better identify, treat, manage, and prevent disease across therapeutic areas. However, lack of security of confidence in digital health technologies is hampering adoption, particularly for biometric monitoring technologies (BioMeTs) where frontline healthcare professionals are struggling to determine which BioMeTs are fit-for-purpose and in which context. Here, we discuss the challenges to adoption and offer pragmatic guidance regarding BioMeTs, cumulating in a proposed framework to advance their development and deployment in healthcare, health research, and health promotion. Furthermore, the framework proposes a process to establish an audit trail of BioMeTs (hardware and algorithms), to instill trust amongst multidisciplinary users

Verification, Analytical Validation, and Clinical Validation (V3): The Foundation of Determining Fit-for-Purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs)

Digital medicine is an interdisciplinary field, drawing together stakeholders with expertize in engineering, manufacturing, clinical science, data science, biostatistics, regulatory science, ethics, patient advocacy, and healthcare policy, to name a few. Although this diversity is undoubtedly valuable, it can lead to confusion regarding terminology and best practices. There are many instances, as we detail in this paper, where a single term is used by different groups to mean different things, as well as cases where multiple terms are used to describe essentially the same concept. Our intent is to clarify core terminology and best practices for the evaluation of Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs), without unnecessarily introducing new terms. We focus on the evaluation of BioMeTs as fit-for-purpose for use in clinical trials. However, our intent is for this framework to be instructional to all users of digital measurement tools, regardless of setting or intended use. We propose and describe a three-component framework intended to provide a foundational evaluation framework for BioMeTs. This framework includes (1) verification, (2) analytical validation, and (3) clinical validation. We aim for this common vocabulary to enable more effective communication and collaboration, generate a common and meaningful evidence base for BioMeTs, and improve the accessibility of the digital medicine field

An Aligned Framework of Actively-collected and Passively-monitored Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) for Measure Selection

Regulators and payers increasingly require Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) data for approval and reimbursement. COAs can be collected actively or passively, yet no single resource provides a side-by-side comparison of tools that collect complementary or related COA measures. We propose how to align ontologies for actively-collected and passively-monitored COAs into a single framework to allow for rapid, evidence-based, and fit-for-purpose measure selection

A systematic review of feasibility studies promoting the use of mobile technologies in clinical research

Mobile technologies such as smartphone applications, wearables, ingestibles, and implantables, are increasingly used in clinical research to capture study endpoints. On behalf of the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative, we aimed to conduct a systematic scoping review and compile a database summarizing pilot studies addressing mobile technology sensor performance, algorithm development, software performance, and/or operational feasibility, in order to provide a resource for guiding decisions about which technology is most suitable for a particular trial. Our systematic search identified 275 publications meeting inclusion criteria. From these papers, we extracted data including the medical condition, concept of interest captured by the mobile technology, outcomes captured by the digital measurement, and details regarding the sensors, algorithms, and study sample. Sixty-seven percent of the technologies identified were wearable sensors, with the remainder including tablets, smartphones, implanted sensors, and cameras. We noted substantial variability in terms of reporting completeness and terminology used. The data have been compiled into an online database maintained by the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative that can be filtered and searched electronically, enabling a user to find information most relevant to their work. Our long-term goal is to maintain and update the online database, in order to promote standardization of methods and reporting, encourage collaboration, and avoid redundant studies, thereby contributing to the design and implementation of efficient, high quality trials