Ian Barnett1, John Torous2, Harrison T Reeder3, Justin Baker4, Jukka-Pekka Onnela3. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Studies that use patient smartphones to collect ecological momentary assessment and sensor data, an approach frequently referred to as digital phenotyping, have increased in popularity in recent years. There is a lack of formal guidelines for the design of new digital phenotyping studies so that they are powered to detect both population-level longitudinal associations as well as individual-level change points in multivariate time series. In particular, determining the appropriate balance of sample size relative to the targeted duration of follow-up is a challenge. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used data from 2 prior smartphone-based digital phenotyping studies to provide reasonable ranges of effect size and parameters. We considered likelihood ratio tests for generalized linear mixed models as well as for change point detection of individual-level multivariate time series. RESULTS: We propose a joint procedure for sequentially calculating first an appropriate length of follow-up and then a necessary minimum sample size required to provide adequate power. In addition, we developed an accompanying accessible sample size and power calculator. DISCUSSION: The 2-parameter problem of identifying both an appropriate sample size and duration of follow-up for a longitudinal study requires the simultaneous consideration of 2 analysis methods during study design. CONCLUSION: The temporally dense longitudinal data collected by digital phenotyping studies may warrant a variety of applicable analysis choices. Our use of generalized linear mixed models as well as change point detection to guide sample size and study duration calculations provide a tool to effectively power new digital phenotyping studies.
OBJECTIVE: Studies that use patient smartphones to collect ecological momentary assessment and sensor data, an approach frequently referred to as digital phenotyping, have increased in popularity in recent years. There is a lack of formal guidelines for the design of new digital phenotyping studies so that they are powered to detect both population-level longitudinal associations as well as individual-level change points in multivariate time series. In particular, determining the appropriate balance of sample size relative to the targeted duration of follow-up is a challenge. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used data from 2 prior smartphone-based digital phenotyping studies to provide reasonable ranges of effect size and parameters. We considered likelihood ratio tests for generalized linear mixed models as well as for change point detection of individual-level multivariate time series. RESULTS: We propose a joint procedure for sequentially calculating first an appropriate length of follow-up and then a necessary minimum sample size required to provide adequate power. In addition, we developed an accompanying accessible sample size and power calculator. DISCUSSION: The 2-parameter problem of identifying both an appropriate sample size and duration of follow-up for a longitudinal study requires the simultaneous consideration of 2 analysis methods during study design. CONCLUSION: The temporally dense longitudinal data collected by digital phenotyping studies may warrant a variety of applicable analysis choices. Our use of generalized linear mixed models as well as change point detection to guide sample size and study duration calculations provide a tool to effectively power new digital phenotyping studies.
Authors: Nic J A van der Wee; Amy C Bilderbeck; Maria Cabello; Jose L Ayuso-Mateos; Ilja M J Saris; Erik J Giltay; Brenda W J H Penninx; Celso Arango; Anke Post; Stefano Porcelli Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2018-06-24 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Ian Barnett; John Torous; Patrick Staples; Luis Sandoval; Matcheri Keshavan; Jukka-Pekka Onnela Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Jason P Burnham; Chenyang Lu; Lauren H Yaeger; Thomas C Bailey; Marin H Kollef Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 4.497