Biomarker-guided therapy in practice — a neurology plus psychiatry viewpoint

Abstract

In routine practice, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, pending validation in prospective studies. Emerging evidence indicates that real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. When protocols are compared, cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, and this trend is expected to continue. From a workflow perspective, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, with meaningful differences between subgroups. In multidisciplinary settings, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, which has direct implications for daily practice.

Recent studies suggest that real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, with meaningful differences between subgroups. In routine practice, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, with meaningful differences between subgroups.

When protocols are compared, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, particularly in resource-constrained settings. From a workflow perspective, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, which has direct implications for daily practice. In routine practice, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, as discussed in the accompanying commentary.

Limitations

Across multiple cohorts, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, although confirmatory data are still limited. Contrary to earlier assumptions, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, and this trend is expected to continue. Across multiple cohorts, variability between operators remains a key limitation, and this trend is expected to continue. Longitudinal data show that training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, which has direct implications for daily practice.

Contrary to earlier assumptions, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, a finding echoed by several independent groups. In multidisciplinary settings, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, although confirmatory data are still limited. Emerging evidence indicates that variability between operators remains a key limitation, with meaningful differences between subgroups.

Key considerations

From a workflow perspective, patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, with meaningful differences between subgroups. According to consensus recommendations, cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. In routine practice, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, although confirmatory data are still limited. Emerging evidence indicates that integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, pending validation in prospective studies. From a workflow perspective, patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, a finding echoed by several independent groups.

What the evidence shows

In routine practice, threshold harmonization is still an open question, with meaningful differences between subgroups. Across multiple cohorts, threshold harmonization is still an open question, although confirmatory data are still limited.

In multidisciplinary settings, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, and this trend is expected to continue. Recent studies suggest that patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, a finding echoed by several independent groups. From a workflow perspective, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, as discussed in the accompanying commentary.