Data Missingness in Digital Phenotyping: Implications for Clinical Inference and Decision-Making
Shen, J.; Abdelkader, K.; Isaac, Z.; Sarno, D.; Kurz, J.; Silbersweig, D.; Onnela, J.-P.; Barron, D.
Show abstract
BackgroundDigital phenotyping, the use of personal digital devices to capture and categorize real-world behavioral and physiological data, holds great potential for complementing traditional clinical assessments. However, missing data remains a critical challenge in this field, especially in longitudinal studies where missingness might obscure clinically relevant insights. ObjectiveThis paper examines the impact of data missingness on digital phenotyping clinical research, proposes a framework for reporting and accounting for data missingness, and explores its implications for clinical inference and decision-making. MethodsWe analyzed digital phenotyping data from a study involving 85 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, focusing on active (PROMIS-29 survey responses) and passive (accelerometer and GPS measures) data collected via the Beiwe Research Platform. We assessed data completeness and missingness at different timescales (day, hour, and minute levels), examined the relationship between data missingness and accelerometer measures and imputed GPS summary statistics, and studied the stability of regression models across varying levels of data missingness. We further investigated the association between functional status and day-level data missingness in PROMIS-29 subscores. ResultsData completeness showed substantial variability across timescales. Accelerometer-based cadence and imputed GPS-based home time and number of significant locations were generally robust to varying levels of data missingness. However, the stability of regression models was affected at higher thresholds (40% for cadence and 60% for home time). We also identified patterns wherein data missingness was associated with functional status. ConclusionData missingness in clinical digital phenotyping studies impacts individual- and group-level analyses. Given these results, we recommend that studies account for and report data at multiple timescales (we recommend day, hour, and minute-level where possible), depending on the clinical goals of data collection. We propose a modified framework for categorizing missingness mechanisms in digital phenotyping, emphasizing the need for clinically relevant reporting and interpretation of missing data. Our framework highlights the importance of integrating clinical with statistical expertise, specifically to ensure that imputing missing data does not obscure but helps capture clinically meaningful changes in functional status.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Feasibility characteristics of wrist-worn fitness trackers in health status monitoring for post-COVID patients in remote and rural areas 94%
- Population Analysis Of Mortality Risk: Predictive Models Using Motion Sensors For 100,000 Participants In The UK Biobank National Cohort 93%
- How can digital citizen science approaches improve ethical smartphone use surveillance among youth: traditional surveys versus ecological momentary assessments 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Methods for analytical validation of novel digital clinical measures: A simulation study 95%
- Comprehensive profiling of social mixing patterns in resource poor countries: a mixed methods research protocol 94%
- Connecting real-world digital mobility assessment to clinical outcomes for regulatory and clinical endorsement – the Mobilise-D study protocol 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Sociodemographic Characteristics of Missing Data in Digital Phenotyping 96%
- Mapping internet activity in Australian cities during COVID-19 lockdown: how occupational factors drive inequality 93%
- Ambulatory physiological measures obtained under naturalistic urban mobility conditions have acceptable reliability 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.