Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs)

Abstract 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 undoubted...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jennifer C. Goldsack, Andrea Coravos, Jessie P. Bakker, Brinnae Bent, Ariel V. Dowling, Cheryl Fitzer-Attas, Alan Godfrey, Job G. Godino, Ninad Gujar, Elena Izmailova, Christine Manta, Barry Peterson, Benjamin Vandendriessche, William A. Wood, Ke Will Wang, Jessilyn Dunn
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nature Publishing Group 2020-04-01
Series:npj Digital Medicine
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0260-4
id doaj-1b5f94c494b5431a8b26ec28113f48ab
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1b5f94c494b5431a8b26ec28113f48ab2021-04-18T11:43:38ZengNature Publishing Groupnpj Digital Medicine2398-63522020-04-013111510.1038/s41746-020-0260-4Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs)Jennifer C. Goldsack0Andrea Coravos1Jessie P. Bakker2Brinnae Bent3Ariel V. Dowling4Cheryl Fitzer-Attas5Alan Godfrey6Job G. Godino7Ninad Gujar8Elena Izmailova9Christine Manta10Barry Peterson11Benjamin Vandendriessche12William A. Wood13Ke Will Wang14Jessilyn Dunn15Digital Medicine Society (DiMe)Digital Medicine Society (DiMe)Digital Medicine Society (DiMe)Biomedical Engineering Department, Duke UniversityTakeda PharmaceuticalsClinMed LLCComputer and Information Sciences Department, Northumbria UniversityCenter for Wireless and Population Health Systems, University of CaliforniaSamsung NeurologicaDigital Medicine Society (DiMe)Digital Medicine Society (DiMe)Independent ConsultantBytefliesDepartment of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterBiomedical Engineering Department, Duke UniversityBiomedical Engineering Department, Duke UniversityAbstract 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.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0260-4
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jennifer C. Goldsack
Andrea Coravos
Jessie P. Bakker
Brinnae Bent
Ariel V. Dowling
Cheryl Fitzer-Attas
Alan Godfrey
Job G. Godino
Ninad Gujar
Elena Izmailova
Christine Manta
Barry Peterson
Benjamin Vandendriessche
William A. Wood
Ke Will Wang
Jessilyn Dunn
spellingShingle Jennifer C. Goldsack
Andrea Coravos
Jessie P. Bakker
Brinnae Bent
Ariel V. Dowling
Cheryl Fitzer-Attas
Alan Godfrey
Job G. Godino
Ninad Gujar
Elena Izmailova
Christine Manta
Barry Peterson
Benjamin Vandendriessche
William A. Wood
Ke Will Wang
Jessilyn Dunn
Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs)
npj Digital Medicine
author_facet Jennifer C. Goldsack
Andrea Coravos
Jessie P. Bakker
Brinnae Bent
Ariel V. Dowling
Cheryl Fitzer-Attas
Alan Godfrey
Job G. Godino
Ninad Gujar
Elena Izmailova
Christine Manta
Barry Peterson
Benjamin Vandendriessche
William A. Wood
Ke Will Wang
Jessilyn Dunn
author_sort Jennifer C. Goldsack
title Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs)
title_short Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs)
title_full Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs)
title_fullStr Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs)
title_full_unstemmed Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs)
title_sort verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (v3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for biometric monitoring technologies (biomets)
publisher Nature Publishing Group
series npj Digital Medicine
issn 2398-6352
publishDate 2020-04-01
description Abstract 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.
url https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0260-4
work_keys_str_mv AT jennifercgoldsack verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT andreacoravos verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT jessiepbakker verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT brinnaebent verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT arielvdowling verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT cherylfitzerattas verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT alangodfrey verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT jobggodino verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT ninadgujar verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT elenaizmailova verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT christinemanta verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT barrypeterson verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT benjaminvandendriessche verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT williamawood verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT kewillwang verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
AT jessilyndunn verificationanalyticalvalidationandclinicalvalidationv3thefoundationofdeterminingfitforpurposeforbiometricmonitoringtechnologiesbiomets
_version_ 1721521902281818112