Key result
Wearable biosensors with machine learning frequently achieve >85% accuracy, but still lack diverse clinical validation.
Why the study?
A consolidated framework was needed to evaluate the convergence of digital therapeutics, wearable electronic devices, and artificial intelligence to bridge the gap between raw biometric data acquisition and actionable clinical insights.
This review highlights the potential of combining wearable biosensors with machine learning to create actionable digital biomarkers, while emphasizing the critical need for robust artifact reduction and external validation in diverse populations.
High controlled accuracies do not support routine clinical use; leaves open real-world utility pending diverse external validation.
The integration of digital therapeutics (DTx), wearable electronic devices, and artificial intelligence (AI) represents a significant advancement in personalized healthcare. The primary purpose of this structured narrative review is to evaluate the convergence of these technologies, providing a consolidated framework that bridges the gap between raw biometric data acquisition and actionable, AI-driven clinical insights. This paper synthesizes the latest literature on the intersection of mobile health (mHealth), machine learning (ML), and physiological tracking, with a primary focus on heart rate variability (HRV) and associated biochemical markers, such as cortisol, salivary alpha-amylase, and interleukins. Instead of viewing wearable outputs simply as raw data, we critically evaluate the technical verification and clinical validation required to define them as true “digital biomarkers.” By evaluating multimodal sensor technologies and advanced predictive algorithms, this paper outlines the clinical utility of digital biomarkers in diagnosing and proactively managing cardiovascular, neurological, metabolic, and psychiatric conditions, noting classification accuracies frequently exceeding 85% in controlled settings. However, we strongly caution that internally validated performance in controlled settings does not inherently demonstrate external clinical utility. The clinical relevance of this study lies in its holistic approach to identifying how continuous monitoring can broaden healthcare accessibility while improving precision medicine. Furthermore, it deeply addresses the technical challenges of highly variable ambulatory data quality, the necessity for robust artifact reduction (e.g., via LSTM and GAN architectures), and the limitations of small, homogeneous training datasets. We highlight the essential need for demographic-aware algorithmic models, external validation, and decentralized privacy-preserving models (e.g., federated learning) in diverse populations to ensure the safe, equitable clinical translation of DTx, mHealth, ML, and AI technologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2026) conducted a review in Cardiovascular, neurological, metabolic, and psychiatric conditions. Wearable biosensors and machine learning was evaluated. Wearable biosensors combined with machine learning algorithms frequently achieve classification accuracies exceeding 85% in controlled settings, though external validation in diverse populations remains essential for clinical utility.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: