Evidence mapPaperPMID 31337662Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Emergence of digital biomarkers to predict and modify treatment efficacy: machine learning study.

Nicole L Guthrie, Jason Carpenter, Katherine L Edwards, Kevin J Appelbaum, Sourav Dey, David M Eisenberg, David L Katz, Mark A Berman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Investigating feature-engineered predictors for systolic blood pressure changes in an mHealth-based disease management program.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Towards a comprehensive assessment of QSP models: what would it take?Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Survey and Evaluation of Hypertension Machine Learning Research.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Translational precision medicine: an industry perspective.Journal of translational medicine · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Future possibilities for artificial intelligence in the practical management of hypertension.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nicole L GuthrieBetter Therapeutics LLC, San Francisco, California, USA.
Jason CarpenterManifold, Inc, Oakland, California, USA.
Katherine L EdwardsBetter Therapeutics LLC, San Francisco, California, USA.
Kevin J AppelbaumBetter Therapeutics LLC, San Francisco, California, USA.
Sourav DeyManifold, Inc, Oakland, California, USA.
David M EisenbergNutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
David L KatzBetter Therapeutics LLC, San Francisco, California, USA.
Mark A BermanBetter Therapeutics LLC, San Francisco, California, USA mark@bettertherapeutics.io.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDevelopment of digital biomarkers to predict treatment response to a digital behavioural intervention.

designMachine learning using random forest classifiers on data generated through the use of a digital therapeutic which delivers behavioural therapy to treat cardiometabolic disease. Data from 13 explanatory variables (biometric and engagement in nature) generated in the first 28 days of a 12-week intervention were used to train models. Two levels of response to treatment were predicted: (1) systolic change ≥10 mm Hg (SC model), and (2) shift down to a blood pressure category of elevated or better (ER model). Models were validated using leave-one-out cross validation and evaluated using area under the curve receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) and specificity- sensitivity. Ability to predict treatment response with a subset of nine variables, including app use and baseline blood pressure, was also tested (models SC-APP and ER-APP).

settingData generated through ad libitum use of a digital therapeutic in the USA.

participantsDeidentified data from 135 adults with a starting blood pressure ≥130/80, who tracked blood pressure for at least 7 weeks using the digital therapeutic.

resultsThe SC model had an AUROC of 0.82 and a sensitivity of 58% at a specificity of 90%. The ER model had an AUROC of 0.69 and a sensitivity of 32% at a specificity at 91%. Dropping explanatory variables related to blood pressure resulted in an AUROC of 0.72 with a sensitivity of 42% at a specificity of 90% for the SC-APP model and an AUROC of 0.53 for the ER-APP model.

conclusionsMachine learning was used to transform data from a digital therapeutic into digital biomarkers that predicted treatment response in individual participants. Digital biomarkers have potential to improve treatment outcomes in a digital behavioural intervention.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorMachine LearningAlgorithmsDatasets as TopicFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and Specificitybehavioural therapydigital therapeuticshypertensionmachine learningmobile health

Identifiers

PMID31337662
PMCPMC6661657

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.