» Articles » PMID: 37790725

Digital/computational Phenotyping: What Are the Differences in the Science and the Ethics?

Overview
Journal Big Data Soc
Date 2023 Oct 4
PMID 37790725
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The concept of 'digital phenotyping' was originally developed by researchers in the mental health field, but it has travelled to other disciplines and areas. This commentary draws upon our experiences of working in two scientific projects that are based at the University of Oxford's Big Data Institute - The RADAR-AD project and The Minerva Initiative - which are developing algorithmic phenotyping technologies. We describe and analyse the concepts of digital biomarkers and computational phenotyping that underlie these projects, explain how they are linked to other research in digital phenotyping and compare and contrast some of their epistemological and ethical implications. In particular, we argue that the phenotyping paradigm in both projects is grounded on an assumption of 'objectivity' that is articulated in different ways depending on the role that is given to the computational/digital tools. Using the concept of 'affordance', we show how specific functionalities relate to potential uses and social implications of these technologies and argue that it is important to distinguish among them as the concept of digital phenotyping is increasingly being used with a variety of meanings.

Citing Articles

Digital Biomarkers in Psychiatric Research: Data Protection Qualifications in a Complex Ecosystem.

Parziale A, Mascalzoni D Front Psychiatry. 2022; 13:873392.

PMID: 35757212 PMC: 9225201. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.873392.

References
1.
Muurling M, de Boer C, Kozak R, Religa D, Koychev I, Verheij H . Remote monitoring technologies in Alzheimer's disease: design of the RADAR-AD study. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2021; 13(1):89. PMC: 8063580. DOI: 10.1186/s13195-021-00825-4. View

2.
Reardon W, Donnai D . Dysmorphology demystified. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2007; 92(3):F225-9. PMC: 2675338. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2006.110619. View

3.
Zemojtel T, Kohler S, Mackenroth L, Jager M, Hecht J, Krawitz P . Effective diagnosis of genetic disease by computational phenotype analysis of the disease-associated genome. Sci Transl Med. 2014; 6(252):252ra123. PMC: 4512639. DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3009262. View

4.
Huckvale K, Venkatesh S, Christensen H . Toward clinical digital phenotyping: a timely opportunity to consider purpose, quality, and safety. NPJ Digit Med. 2019; 2:88. PMC: 6731256. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-019-0166-1. View

5.
Nellaker C, Alkuraya F, Baynam G, Bernier R, Bernier F, Boulanger V . Enabling Global Clinical Collaborations on Identifiable Patient Data: The Minerva Initiative. Front Genet. 2019; 10:611. PMC: 6681681. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00611. View