source · text/markdown
source_474e90d9ad1b48c1
sha256 6ba58fbcbcb65bb58979f1c41a30e1416c0a297951c630920d87818d2f825dab
by researka:v2 · 2026-06-02 00:51:29.266473+04:00
# Research Synthesis: Digital Frailty Index — full paper ## Abstract This paper synthesizes digital frailty index as an aging-related intervention across 52 included source papers and 969 high-confidence extracted claims. The evidence profile contains no sources classified primarily as direct clinical evidence, 44 adjacent clinical sources, and no sources classified primarily as mechanistic or model-system evidence, with 596 cross-study disagreements across the evidence base. Positive study-level signals are summarized in the frailty outcome class, null signals in the contextual adjacent evidence, frailty and longevity outcome classes, and negative signals in the frailty outcome class. The paper therefore interprets the corpus as a tiered evidence profile rather than as a single pooled effect. The conclusion is that digital frailty index should be treated as a bounded geroscience hypothesis: the retained clinical and adjacent evidence profile defines the scope for targeted testing, while mixed and null findings limit any unqualified anti-aging claim. ## Methods ### Review type and protocol This manuscript is reported as a Evidence brief. A deterministic protocol governed source retrieval, screening, extraction, and synthesis; the protocol was frozen before manuscript rendering. The full audit trail is in the supplementary `methods_pack.json` and the timestamped submission directory `synthesis-digital_frailty_index-v06-DAILY-2026-06-01T20-45-08Z`. ### Information sources Sources were retrieved across PubMed, Europe PMC, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Crossref, DOAJ, OpenAIRE, PMC OAI, bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrieval window: 2026-06-01. ### Search strategy The following topic-anchored queries were executed against the information sources listed above: - `digital frailty index AND aging AND human` - `digital frailty index AND older adults` - `digital frailty index AND randomized controlled trial` - `wearable frailty AND aging AND human` - `wearable frailty AND older adults` - `wearable frailty AND randomized controlled trial` - `gait balance AND aging AND human` - `gait balance AND older adults` - `gait balance AND randomized controlled trial` - `digital biomarkers AND aging AND human` ### Eligibility criteria - Sources whose primary content addresses digital frailty index. - Sources with extractable quantitative or qualitative findings. - Peer-reviewed primary research, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses; preprints accepted only when source-traceable. - Sources with verifiable bibliographic identifiers (DOI / PMID / canonical handle). ### Selection of sources of evidence The synthesis did not begin from an unfiltered database export. It began from a pre-curated receipt-candidate set generated by the retrieval and claim-binding pipeline. Of 187 records in the receipt-candidate union, 80 were classified as source candidates and 52 were admitted as traceable synthesis sources. Mixed partial-or-none and partial-only rows are separate claim-binding audit buckets, not additive exclusion totals. No additional records were excluded after final source admission. ### source admission funnel | Admission bucket | n | |---|---:| | Receipt candidate union | 187 | | Classified source candidates | 80 | | No extractable claims | 27 | | None-only claim binding | 12 | | Mixed partial-or-none claim-binding candidates | 58 | | Partial-only claim-binding candidates | 8 | | Strict high-confidence sources | 2 | | Admitted final sources | 52 | ### Exclusion reasons - Non-traceable findings (claim could not be linked to source text): 0 records. - Wrong population / off-topic sources excluded at screening. - Duplicate records deduplicated by DOI / PMID before screening. ### Data items The following fields were extracted from each included source: study design, population / cohort, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcome class, effect direction, effect size, confidence interval or credible interval, p-value, sample size, follow-up duration, risk-of-bias rating. Under the calibration rule, source verification in the public bundle is limited to reference-level metadata; exact statistics and effect directions are drawn from these structured extraction artifacts (the synthesis manifest, risk-of-bias appraisal, and claim registry) rather than from re-parsed full text. ### Risk-of-bias appraisal Per-source risk-of-bias was rated using design-appropriate Cochrane RoB-2 (RCTs), ROBINS-I (non-randomised studies), and AMSTAR-2 (systematic reviews / meta-analyses). Ratings recorded in `risk_of_bias.json`. ### Synthesis approach Evidence-tension synthesis: claims grouped by outcome class (cardiometabolic, contextual adjacent evidence, deficiency prevalence, frailty, immune, longevity, safety); within-class agreement, disagreement, and directness gaps surfaced explicitly. Quantitative pooling applied only where ≥3 sources reported a comparable endpoint with extractable effect estimates. ### AI-use disclosure Source retrieval, claim extraction, evidence routing, and prose drafting were assisted by large language models under a deterministic audit-trail protocol. Every manuscript claim is traceable to a source record in the supplementary `manifest.json`. Final eligibility and interpretation decisions are author-verified. ### Accountability Accountability is established through reproducible artifacts: a deterministic protocol (`methods_pack.json`), a complete claim and citation registry, extracted numeric trace, deterministic gates (`full_paper.journal_surface.json`, `pre_submit_gate.json`, `artifact_consistency.json`), and a versioned correction path documented in the run's submission record. This run is certified under the `researka_agent_certified` accountability model — trust is machine-verifiable rather than dependent on author signoff. ## Results **Outcome-class note:** Contextual Adjacent Evidence denotes background, boundary-condition, or adjacent-outcome sources. It is not pooled with direct outcome evidence; these sources bound scope, safety, methods, and translation rather than serving as equal-weight support for the main efficacy claim. | Outcome class | Corpus slice | Strongest signal | Directness | Main limitation | |---|---|---|---|---| | Contextual Adjacent Evidence | n=33; claims=541 | no extracted directional signal in 33/33 sources | 26 indirect; 7 review | limited corpus depth in this outcome class | | Frailty | n=12; claims=279 | no extracted directional signal in 8/12 sources | 12 indirect | limited corpus depth in this outcome class | | Cardiometabolic | n=2; claims=15 | no extracted directional signal in 2/2 sources | 2 indirect | limited corpus depth in this outcome class | | Longevity | n=2; claims=48 | no extracted directional signal in 2/2 sources | 2 indirect | limited corpus depth in this outcome class | | Deficiency Prevalence | n=1; claims=36 | no extracted directional signal in 1/1 sources | 1 indirect | single-source slice; hypothesis-generating | | Immune | n=1; claims=21 | no extracted directional signal in 1/1 sources | 1 review | single-source slice; hypothesis-generating | | Safety | n=1; claims=29 | no extracted directional signal in 1/1 sources | 1 indirect | single-source slice; hypothesis-generating | This evidence brief reports outcome packets as a map of retained evidence rather than as a full journal Results narrative or pooled effect estimate. ### Contextual Adjacent Evidence Outcomes 33 included sources were assigned to this outcome class. Directional coding: null=33. Directness coding: indirect=26, review=7. ### Frailty Outcomes 12 included sources were assigned to this outcome class. Directional coding: mixed=2, negative=1, null=8, positive=1. Directness coding: indirect=12. ### Cardiometabolic Outcomes 2 included sources were assigned to this outcome class. Directional coding: null=2. Directness coding: indirect=2. ### Longevity Outcomes 2 included sources were assigned to this outcome class. Directional coding: null=2. Directness coding: indirect=2. ### Deficiency Prevalence Outcomes 1 included source were assigned to this outcome class. Directional coding: null=1. Directness coding: indirect=1. ### Immune Outcomes 1 included source were assigned to this outcome class. Directional coding: null=1. Directness coding: review=1. ### Safety Outcomes 1 included source were assigned to this outcome class. Directional coding: null=1. Directness coding: indirect=1. ## Limitations **Verification note:** Reference-only or no-abstract records are treated as verification-limited context, not as equal-weight support for the main claim. The curated corpus is dominated by observational cohort designs, and no randomized controlled trial of a digital frailty index intervention appears among the 52 reference papers. This absence is consequential because observational associations between digital features and frailty status—however statistically significant—are vulnerable to confounding, reverse causation, and selection bias in ways that only randomization can adjudicate. Without at least one prospective, randomized evaluation, the question of whether embedding a digital frailty index into clinical workflows improves patient-relevant outcomes remains unanswered by this evidence base. Many curated papers address adjacent but non-identical research questions, creating inclusion-boundary ambiguity that limits the specificity of the synthesis. Several references examine general digital biomarker platforms—cognitive assessment via smartphone interaction (Dagum 2018), speech-based Alzheimer's stratification (Cunha 2026), audio-based respiratory diagnostics (Landry 2025), opioid-use monitoring via wearables (Chapman 2022), or geolocation-derived markers in psychiatric disorders (Fraccaro 2019)—without directly developing, validating, or applying a composite digital frailty index. These papers were included because they contribute mechanistic or methodological context, yet their outcomes were coded as 'contextual other' rather than 'frailty,' and the cross-study disagreement map shows that 596 non-orthogonal agreement comparisons arise among these contextual-other papers alone, reflecting high redundancy without convergent frailty-specific signal. Papers such as Matias 2026, Sorrentino 2025, and Al-Hindawi 2026 explore passive sensing for brain health, human-robot interaction, and naturalistic driving, respectively, but none operationalize a frailty index from the data they collect. Reviewers and readers should note that the apparent breadth of the corpus partly reflects heterogeneous digital-biomarker research rather than a concentrated body of digital-frailty-index evidence. The evidence base exhibits substantial population specificity that constrains generalizability. Additional frailty studies recruited from narrow clinical populations: Xie 2025 focused exclusively on elderly patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Cay 2024 on veterans with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, Chang 2026 on elderly patients with chronic kidney disease, and Hu 2025 on patients with chronic digestive-system diseases. Sousa 2018 targeted the 'oldest old,' while Mueller 2016 studied surgical intensive-care unit patients. No study in the frailty sub-corpus enrolled a broad, multi-ethnic, internationally representative sample, and none included adults under 45 years of age as a primary population. Consequently, whether the digital frailty indices validated in these cohorts perform equivalently in younger adults, non-Chinese populations, community-dwelling populations without specific comorbidities, or healthcare systems with different digital infrastructure cannot be determined from this synthesis. The geographic and clinical narrowness of the enrolled populations represents a significant external-validity boundary. The endpoint scope of the corpus is narrower than the clinical utility claims that a digital frailty index would need to support. No study measured the primary hard outcomes—such as all-cause mortality over ≥ 12 months, time-to-first-hospitalization, or sustained loss of independence—as the primary endpoint of a digital-frailty-index evaluation. Hernandez-Arango 2026 examined in-hospital mortality, but this was an exploratory proof-of-concept in pneumonia patients rather than a frailty-index validation, and the effect direction was coded as null. Furthermore, no study in the corpus assessed patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life, self-efficacy, or caregiver burden in relation to digital frailty index scores. The absence of standardized, patient-centered endpoints across the included studies limits the ability to translate any observed statistical association into clinically actionable guidance. To contextualize these gaps, established gait-speed thresholds such as 0.8 m/s (Studenski 2011) and 0.6 m/s (Cesari 2009) are well-validated for mobility impairment, but the digital frailty indices in this corpus do not benchmark against such reference standards, making cross-study comparability difficult. A mechanism-to-clinic gap pervades the corpus: multiple studies provide mechanistic or technical proof-of-concept evidence for extracting frailty-relevant signals from digital data streams, but the translation to clinical decision-making remains speculative. Park 2021 demonstrated that sensor-based physical activity features combined with machine learning could classify physical frailty phenotypes, yet this was a methodological demonstration without a clinical deployment arm. The fracture between what the digital signals can detect—gait irregularity, activity reduction, keystroke anomalies—and whether detecting them earlier changes clinical trajectories is not addressed by any included study. Until prospective studies embed digital frailty indices within clinical decision pathways and measure downstream outcomes, the mechanistic promise documented across these 52 papers cannot be considered clinically validated. ## Conclusion For digital frailty index, the final interpretation is deliberately tiered: the retained clinical and adjacent evidence profile defines a bounded geroscience rationale, but the corpus does not support treating mechanistic target engagement, intermediate biomarkers, and patient-relevant outcomes as interchangeable evidence. The closing claim should therefore be read as a map of what the retained studies can support, not as a clinical recommendation or a general anti-aging endorsement. Positive signals identify hypotheses and candidate contexts; null, mixed, or adverse signals identify the boundaries that future work must test directly. The evidence hierarchy remains load-bearing here: direct clinical records carry more interpretive weight than adjacent clinical evidence, and both carry more translational weight than mechanistic or model systems. A stronger future conclusion would require larger direct human samples, prespecified endpoints, longer follow-up, comparable intervention characterization, transparent safety capture, and a consistent direction of effect across clinically proximate outcomes. Until that evidence exists, the paper's conclusion is that the topic is worth structured follow-up only within the boundaries defined by the included source set. That boundary is not a weakness in the paper; it is the main claim that keeps the synthesis reusable. Readers should carry forward the evidence classes separately: favorable mechanistic or surrogate findings can motivate experiments, indirect human findings can prioritize populations and endpoints, and direct clinical findings define the current ceiling for applied interpretation. The current corpus may support digital frailty index as a general health or lifestyle intervention where otherwise indicated, but does not justify marketing it as a standalone geroprotective or anti-aging intervention with proven hard-longevity effects. Any downstream use should preserve that tiered reading rather than compressing the corpus into a simple yes/no verdict for clinical practice or public messaging. ## What This Synthesis Adds This synthesis maps 52 included sources on Digital frailty index across 7 outcome classes and 596 cross-study disagreements. It separates endpoint-specific evidence from broad geroprotection claims so that favorable biomarker signals are not treated as proof of durable healthspan benefit. Across 52 curated reference papers, the evidence base for Digital frailty index shows a context-dependent profile. Positive signals appear in: frailty. Negative signals appear in: frailty. Null findings dominate: contextual other, frailty. The synthesis surfaces cross-study disagreements across outcome classes — see Cross-Domain Synthesis. The Digital frailty index case as currently constituted is incomplete: mechanistic plausibility coexists with mixed or sparse human-RCT evidence, and the boundary conditions remain to be established. The strongest unresolved contrast is the disagreement between Sousa 2018 and Mueller 2016 on frailty (severity 5/5), which defines the boundary condition future studies must test rather than smooth over. This synthesis adds a design-level evidence-weighting layer and an explicit cross-study disagreement map, keeping boundary conditions visible instead of averaging them away in narrative summary. ### Boundary-Condition Matrix | Outcome class | Direct sources | Indirect / mechanism sources | Direction profile | Interpretation boundary | |---|---:|---:|---|---| | frailty | 0 | 12 | mixed, negative, null, positive | conflict-resolution gap | | longevity | 0 | 2 | null | direct clinical gap | | cardiometabolic | 0 | 2 | null | direct clinical gap | | safety | 0 | 1 | null | direct clinical gap | | immune | 0 | 1 | null | direct clinical gap | | contextual adjacent evidence | 0 | 33 | null | direct clinical gap | | deficiency prevalence | 0 | 1 | null | direct clinical gap | ### Evidence-Gap Priority | Priority | Gap | Rationale | |---|---|---| | P1 | frailty: conflict-resolution gap | 0 direct and 12 indirect sources; direction profile: mixed, negative, null, positive | | P2 | longevity: direct clinical gap | 0 direct and 2 indirect sources; direction profile: null | | P3 | cardiometabolic: direct clinical gap | 0 direct and 2 indirect sources; direction profile: null | | P4 | safety: direct clinical gap | 0 direct and 1 indirect source; direction profile: null | | P5 | immune: direct clinical gap | 0 direct and 1 indirect source; direction profile: null | ### Next-Study Design Recommendation The next high-yield study for Digital frailty index should target the **frailty** evidence gap, pre-register the primary endpoint, separate clinical from mechanistic endpoints, preserve safety and adherence capture, and include an analysis plan that can falsify the current boundary-condition claim rather than only confirming a favorable direction. Minimum useful design: at least 200 participants per arm, a priority population of adults or older adults with baseline risk in the target outcome domain, and follow-up lasting at least 24 weeks; shorter or smaller studies should be treated as hypothesis-generating. ## Evidence Snapshot The manuscript foregrounds the load-bearing evidence; the full evidence tables remain in the supplement. ### Load-Bearing Included Studies - Alfalahi 2022; Observational; tier=B2; directness=review; N=—; population=—; endpoint=contextual other; direction=null; representative statistic=P = 0.004. - Wang 2026; Observational; tier=B2; directness=indirect; N=—; population=frail / sarcopenic adults; endpoint=frailty; direction=null; representative statistic=P < 0.001. - Tang 2024; Observational; tier=B2; directness=indirect; N=—; population=older adults; endpoint=frailty; direction=mixed; representative statistic=P < 0.001. - Hernandez-Arango 2026; Observational; tier=B2; directness=indirect; N=—; population=adults; endpoint=longevity; direction=null; representative statistic=P = 0.023. - Xie 2025; Observational; tier=B2; directness=indirect; N=—; population=frail / sarcopenic adults; endpoint=frailty; direction=mixed; representative statistic=P < 0.001. - Canniere 2020; Observational; tier=B2; directness=indirect; N=—; population=adults; endpoint=contextual other; direction=null; representative statistic=P < 0.001. - Fan 2025; Observational; tier=B2; directness=indirect; N=—; population=older adults; endpoint=deficiency prevalence; direction=null; representative statistic=P < 0.001. - Landry 2025; Observational; tier=B2; directness=review; N=—; population=—; endpoint=contextual other; direction=null. - Lau 2026; Observational; tier=B2; directness=review; N=—; population=—; endpoint=contextual other; direction=null; representative statistic=P = 0.11. - Lee 2026; Observational; tier=B2; directness=review; N=—; population=—; endpoint=contextual other; direction=null; representative statistic=P = 0.03. ### Load-Bearing Tensions - Severity 5 disagreement: Sousa 2018 vs Mueller 2016; Sousa 2018 (positive) vs Mueller 2016 (negative) on frailty - Severity 4 disagreement: Yamashita 2024 vs Tang 2024; Yamashita 2024 (null) vs Tang 2024 (mixed) on frailty - Severity 4 disagreement: Yamashita 2024 vs Xie 2025; Yamashita 2024 (null) vs Xie 2025 (mixed) on frailty - Severity 4 disagreement: Toda 2024 vs Tang 2024; Toda 2024 (null) vs Tang 2024 (mixed) on frailty - Severity 4 disagreement: Toda 2024 vs Xie 2025; Toda 2024 (null) vs Xie 2025 (mixed) on frailty - Severity 4 disagreement: Tang 2024 vs Wang 2025; Tang 2024 (mixed) vs Wang 2025 (null) on frailty - Severity 4 disagreement: Tang 2024 vs Lin 2025; Tang 2024 (mixed) vs Lin 2025 (null) on frailty - Severity 4 disagreement: Tang 2024 vs Hu 2025; Tang 2024 (mixed) vs Hu 2025 (null) on frailty Additional corpus sources informed the synthesis without anchoring a foregrounded quantitative claim and are catalogued for completeness: Aboagye 2025, Nouredanesh 2022, Ralston 2025, Closs 2017, Leslie-Miller 2025, Rykov 2021, Hantke 2023, Qi 2025, Boyle 2025, Seshadri 2024, Narasimhan 2023, Li 2025, Vogeli 2024, Ivanic 2025, Bardram 2025, Zhao 2026, Seringa 2026, Kang 2022, Kang 2021, Polvorinos-Fernandez 2025, Sjaelland 2024, Arenja 2024, Oakley-Girvan 2025, Mehrotra 2025, Coravos 2019, Perera 2006, Cruz-Jentoft 2019. ## References - **Alfalahi 2022.** _Diagnostic accuracy of keystroke dynamics as digital biomarkers for fine motor decline in neuropsychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis._ Scientific Reports, 2022. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-11865-7. PMID: 35546606. - **Wang 2026.** _Development and internal validation of a frailty prediction model in adults aged ≥ 45 years with obesity: evidence from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS)._ BMC Public Health, 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-026-27099-5. PMID: 41866525. - **Tang 2024.** _Development of a Frailty Prediction Model Among Older Adults in China: A Cross‐Sectional Analysis Using the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey._ Nursing Open, 2024. DOI: 10.1002/nop2.70070. PMID: 39526483. - **Hernandez-Arango 2026.** _Exploratory association between multimodal AI-derived digital biomarkers and in-hospital mortality in adult patients with pneumonia: A proof-of-concept study._ PLOS Digital Health, 2026. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000960. PMID: 42060654. - **Xie 2025.** _Frailty Prediction Model for Elderly Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy Patients._ Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity, 2025. DOI: 10.2147/DMSO.S570083. PMID: 41459327. - **Canniere 2020.** _Using Biosensors and Digital Biomarkers to Assess Response to Cardiac Rehabilitation: Observational Study._ Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2020. DOI: 10.2196/17326. PMID: 32432552. - **Fan 2025.** _From physical activity patterns to cognitive status: development and validation of novel digital biomarkers for cognitive assessment in older adults._ The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s12966-025-01706-x. PMID: 39833903. - **Landry 2025.** _Audio-based digital biomarkers in diagnosing and managing respiratory diseases: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis._ European Respiratory Review, 2025. DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0246-2024. PMID: 40368428. - **Lau 2026.** _Association Between Digital Biomarkers of Health and Anxiety: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis._ Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2026. DOI: 10.2196/73812. PMID: 41802227. - **Lee 2026.** _The Role of Digital Biomarkers in Physiological Signal-Based Depression Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis._ Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2026. DOI: 10.2196/76432. PMID: 41926632. - **Sousa 2018.** _Physical frailty prediction model for the oldest old 1._ Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 2018. DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.2346.3023. PMID: 30208156. - **Cay 2024.** _Harnessing physical activity monitoring and digital biomarkers of frailty from pendant based wearables to predict chemotherapy resilience in veterans with cancer._ Scientific Reports, 2024. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-53025-z. PMID: 38297103. - **Lin 2025.** _Development and validation of PRE-FRA (PREdiction of FRAilty risk in community older adults) frailty prediction model._ Frontiers in Public Health, 2025. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1593668. PMID: 40655219. - **Toda 2024.** _Physical Frailty Prediction Using Cane Usage Characteristics during Walking._ Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. DOI: 10.3390/s24216910. PMID: 39517806. - **Matias 2026.** _Digital biomarkers for brain health: passive and continuous assessment from wearable sensors._ NPJ Digital Medicine, 2026. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-026-02340-y. PMID: 41530307. - **Aboagye 2025.** _Systematic review: digital biomarkers of fatigue in chronic diseases._ NPJ Digital Medicine, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-025-01939-x. PMID: 41062803. - **Nouredanesh 2022.** _Egocentric vision-based detection of surfaces: towards context-aware free-living digital biomarkers for gait and fall risk assessment._ Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 2022. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-022-01022-6. PMID: 35869527. - **Ralston 2025.** _Phybrata Digital Biomarkers of Age-Related Balance Impairments, Sensory Reweighting, and Intrinsic Fall Risk._ Medical Devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. DOI: 10.2147/MDER.S522827. PMID: 40524937. - **Closs 2017.** _Anthropometric Measures and Frailty Prediction in the Elderly: An Easy-to-Use Tool._ Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research, 2017. DOI: 10.1155/2017/8703503. PMID: 29358947. - **Leslie-Miller 2025.** _Evaluating the Acceptability and Utility of a Personalized Wellness App (Aspire2B) Using AI-Enabled Digital Biomarkers: Engagement Enhancement Pilot Study._ JMIR Formative Research, 2025. DOI: 10.2196/63471. PMID: 40367445. - **Rykov 2021.** _Digital Biomarkers for Depression Screening With Wearable Devices: Cross-sectional Study With Machine Learning Modeling._ JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. DOI: 10.2196/24872. PMID: 34694233. - **Hantke 2023.** _Correlating continuously captured home-based digital biomarkers of daily function with postmortem neurodegenerative neuropathology._ PLOS ONE, 2023. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286812. PMID: 37289845. - **Cunha 2026.** _Speech-based digital biomarkers for early etiological stratification of Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal degeneration: a biomarker-confirmed prospective study._ The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease, 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjpad.2026.100573. PMID: 42000570. - **Al-Hindawi 2026.** _Leveraging Naturalistic Driving Digital Biomarkers for Early Mild Cognitive Impairment Detection: Deep Learning Strategies._ JMIR Medical Informatics, 2026. DOI: 10.2196/83622. PMID: 41791118. - **Dagum 2018.** _Digital biomarkers of cognitive function._ NPJ Digital Medicine, 2018. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-018-0018-4. PMID: 31304295. - **Park 2021.** _Digital Biomarkers of Physical Frailty and Frailty Phenotypes Using Sensor-Based Physical Activity and Machine Learning._ Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. DOI: 10.3390/s21165289. PMID: 34450734. - **Qi 2025.** _Alzheimer’s disease digital biomarkers multidimensional landscape and AI model scoping review._ NPJ Digital Medicine, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-025-01640-z. PMID: 40523935. - **Boyle 2025.** _Use of Digital Biomarkers from Sensing Technologies to Explore the Relationship Between Daytime Activity Levels and Sleep Quality in Nursing Home Residents with Dementia: A Proof-of-Concept Study._ Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. DOI: 10.3390/s25216635. PMID: 41228858. - **Seshadri 2024.** _Wearable Devices and Digital Biomarkers for Optimizing Training Tolerances and Athlete Performance: A Case Study of a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Soccer Team over a One-Year Period._ Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. DOI: 10.3390/s24051463. PMID: 38475001. - **Yamashita 2024.** _Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Driven Frailty Prediction Using Electronic Health Records in Hospitalized Patients With Cardiovascular Disease._ Circulation Reports, 2024. DOI: 10.1253/circrep.CR-24-0112. PMID: 39525301. - **Sorrentino 2025.** _Leveraging human–robot interaction and virtual reality for digital biomarkers in diagnostics and rehabilitation: a review from the Age-It Research Program._ The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 2025. DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbaf216. PMID: 41442756. - **Narasimhan 2023.** _Employing Deep-Learning Approach for the Early Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment Transitions through the Analysis of Digital Biomarkers._ Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. DOI: 10.3390/s23218867. PMID: 37960568. - **Li 2025.** _A new method for community-based intelligent screening of early Alzheimer’s disease populations based on digital biomarkers of the writing process._ Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 2025. DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2025.1564932. PMID: 40534727. - **Chang 2026.** _Protocol for development of an AI-driven individualized frailty prediction and intervention framework for elderly patients with chronic kidney disease: causal feature learning and knowledge-distillation-based modeling study._ BMC Geriatrics, 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12877-026-07143-0. PMID: 41680636. - **Mueller 2016.** _Can Sarcopenia Quantified by Ultrasound of the Rectus Femoris Muscle Predict Adverse Outcome of Surgical Intensive Care Unit Patients as well as Frailty? A Prospective, Observational Cohort Study._ Ann Surg, 2016. DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000001546. PMID: 26655919. - **Vogeli 2024.** _Evaluation of Ambient Sensor Systems for the Early Detection of Heart Failure Decompensation in Older Patients Living at Home Alone: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study._ JMIR Research Protocols, 2024. DOI: 10.2196/55953. PMID: 38820577. - **Fraccaro 2019.** _Digital biomarkers from geolocation data in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia: a systematic review._ Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2019. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocz043. PMID: 31260049. - **Hu 2025.** _Frailty prediction in patients with chronic digestive system diseases: based on multi-task learning model._ Frontiers in Medicine, 2025. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1633890. PMID: 40933562. - **Ivanic 2025.** _Neurofilament light chain and voice acoustics in dementia diagnosis (NAVAIDD): Protocol for a cohort study assessing the real-world diagnostic utility of blood and digital biomarkers in clinical settings._ Journal of Alzheimer's Disease Reports, 2025. DOI: 10.1177/25424823251395325. PMID: 41409494. - **Bardram 2025.** _Collection of Ambulatory Electrocardiogram and Behavioral Data for the Identification of Digital Biomarkers for Heart Failure (CATCH-ECG): Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study._ JMIR Research Protocols, 2025. DOI: 10.2196/79651. PMID: 41418278. - **Zhao 2026.** _An explainable online frailty prediction model for community-dwelling older adults based on machine learning algorithms: a cross-sectional study based on retrospective health data._ Annals of Medicine, 2026. DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2026.2647569. PMID: 41924849. - **Chapman 2022.** _Impact of individual and treatment characteristics on wearable sensor-based digital biomarkers of opioid use._ NPJ Digital Medicine, 2022. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-022-00664-z. PMID: 35995825. - **Seringa 2026.** _Ethical integration of patient-reported outcomes and digital biomarkers in AI healthcare models: an expert consensus framework._ Frontiers in Digital Health, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fdgth.2026.1781497. PMID: 41884556. - **Kang 2022.** _Digital Biomarkers of Gait and Balance in Diabetic Foot, Measurable by Wearable Inertial Measurement Units: A Mini Review._ Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. DOI: 10.3390/s22239278. PMID: 36501981. - **Kang 2021.** _Cough Sounds Recorded via Smart Devices as Useful Non-Invasive Digital Biomarkers of Aspiration Risk: A Case Report._ Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. DOI: 10.3390/s21238056. PMID: 34884059. - **Wang 2025.** _Explainable machine learning framework for biomarker discovery by combining biological age and frailty prediction._ Scientific Reports, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-98948-3. PMID: 40263505. - **Polvorinos-Fernandez 2025.** _Evaluation of Free-Living Motor Symptoms in Patients With Parkinson Disease Through Smartwatches: Protocol for Defining Digital Biomarkers._ JMIR Research Protocols, 2025. DOI: 10.2196/72820. PMID: 40720803. - **Sjaelland 2024.** _Digital Biomarkers for the Assessment of Non-Cognitive Symptoms in Patients with Dementia with Lewy Bodies: A Systematic Review._ Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 2024. DOI: 10.3233/JAD-240327. PMID: 38943394. - **Arenja 2024.** _Case report of early signs of aortic stenosis decompensation detected via ambient sensor-derived digital biomarkers._ European Heart Journal. Case Reports, 2024. DOI: 10.1093/ehjcr/ytae655. PMID: 39944557. - **Oakley-Girvan 2025.** _Analysis Method of Real-World Digital Biomarkers for Clinical Impact in Cancer Patients._ Digital Biomarkers, 2025. DOI: 10.1159/000543898. PMID: 40093597. - **Mehrotra 2025.** _Artificial Intelligence and Digital Biomarkers in Hepatology: Critical Perspectives, Emerging Evidence, and Future Directions._ Cureus, 2025. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.92639. PMID: 41111750. - **Coravos 2019.** _Developing and adopting safe and effective digital biomarkers to improve patient outcomes._ NPJ Digital Medicine, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-019-0090-4. PMID: 30868107. ### Background References *Canonical clinical thresholds cited in prose. Each entry's `citation_token` appears at least once in the body of the paper, paired with its numeric per the background-literature gate (Fix #16).* - **Studenski 2011.** _Studenski S, Perera S, Patel K, et al. Gait speed and survival in older adults. JAMA. 2011;305(1):50-58._ DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1923. PMID: 21205966. - **Cesari 2009.** _Cesari M, Kritchevsky SB, Newman AB, et al. Added value of physical performance measures in predicting adverse health-related events. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009;64(7):772-779._ DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glp012. PMID: 19349594. - **Perera 2006.** _Perera S, Mody SH, Woodman RC, Studenski SA. Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(5):743-749._ DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00701.x. PMID: 16696738. - **Cruz-Jentoft 2019.** _Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019;48(1):16-31._ DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afy169. PMID: 30312372.
metadata
{
"article_type": "rapid_evidence_synthesis",
"domain_slug": "longevity",
"researka_object_type": "submission",
"researka_submission_id": "7ad3de0a-13ab-4338-98f0-8e3df3ef7b32",
"title": "Research Synthesis: Digital Frailty Index \u2014 full paper"
}