Home›Neurology› Wearable digital biomarkers show potential for neurorehabilitation monitoring, but evidence is heterogeneous and early
Wearable digital biomarkers show potential for neurorehabilitation monitoring, but evidence is heterogeneous and earlyWearable devices track movement and health for neurological recovery
Frontiers in MedicinePublished September 9, 2026DOI ↗Editorial oversight: Dr. Ji-eun Park, MD · Brain, Mind & Pain
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review.
How we work
Share
Key Takeaway
Consider wearable digital biomarkers as early-stage monitoring tools; standardization and longitudinal data are needed.
This scoping review maps the current evidence on wearable-derived digital biomarkers in neurological rehabilitation populations, including stroke, Parkinson disease, and spinal cord injury. The authors synthesized findings from 56 studies, focusing on clinical applications, biomarker domains, and measurement characteristics such as validity and reliability.
Stroke (n=29) and Parkinson disease (n=10) were the most frequently investigated conditions. Inertial measurement unit (IMU) based systems were the predominant wearable technology, used in 34 studies. Kinematic biomarkers were the most common domain, reported in 16 of 29 stroke studies and 9 of 10 Parkinson disease studies. In spinal cord injury, activity-based and physiological biomarkers were each reported in 2 of 5 studies.
The authors note substantial heterogeneity across sensor configurations, biomarker definitions, and validation methodologies, which limits comparability and generalizability. They also highlight limited longitudinal evidence, meaning the long-term utility and stability of these biomarkers remain unclear.
While wearable-derived digital biomarkers show potential for objective and ecologically valid monitoring in neurorehabilitation, clinical implementation is at an early stage. Clinicians should interpret current findings cautiously and recognize the need for standardized approaches and more robust longitudinal data before routine adoption.
How this fits prior evidence
This scoping review extends prior coverage by focusing on wearable-derived digital biomarkers as a monitoring tool across neurological rehabilitation, complementing earlier findings on time-critical interventions like mobile stroke units and brain-computer interface (BCI) motor improvements. It addresses a gap by synthesizing evidence on biomarker domains and measurement properties, but the heterogeneity and early-stage nature contrast with the more mature interventional evidence for BCI and mothership strategies. The review does not provide effect sizes, so it cannot directly confirm or refute the magnitude of benefits seen in those prior studies.
Recovering from a stroke or living with Parkinson disease requires constant monitoring of physical movement. New research looks at how wearable devices, like those using motion sensors, can provide objective data on how patients move and function in their daily lives. This data is known as digital biomarkers.
Researchers reviewed 56 studies to see how these tools work. They found that motion-based data is common for stroke and Parkinson patients. For those with spinal cord injuries, the data often tracks activity levels and physical signs. These tools aim to give doctors a clearer picture of a patient's progress outside of a clinic.
While these wearable tools show promise for tracking progress, the technology is still in the early stages. Because different studies use different types of sensors and different ways to measure data, it is hard to say exactly how they will be used in every clinic. There is also a need for more long-term data to see how these tools perform over time.
What this means for you:
Wearable sensors can provide objective data on movement for stroke and Parkinson patients, but the technology is still early.
Common questions
What conditions can these wearable devices help with?
These wearable devices are being used to monitor people with stroke, Parkinson disease, and spinal cord injuries. The research specifically looked at 29 studies on stroke and 10 studies on Parkinson disease to see how these tools track movement and physical signs.
What kind of information do these devices collect?
The most common type of data collected is kinematic biomarkers, which are measurements of how a person moves. For spinal cord injuries, the devices also track activity-based and physiological biomarkers to help monitor the patient's condition.
Is this technology ready for everyone to use in clinics?
The technology is still in the early stages of development. Because different studies use different sensors and different ways to measure data, there is a lot of variety in how the tools work. More long-term evidence is needed before they are widely used in clinics.
BackgroundWearable-derived digital biomarkers are increasingly being investigated in neurological rehabilitation to provide objective and continuous assessment of physical function beyond conventional clinic-based measures. However, the clinical applications and measurement characteristics of these biomarkers across neurological populations remain unclear.ObjectiveTo synthesize the current evidence regarding wearable-derived digital biomarkers used in neurological rehabilitation and to summarize their clinical applications, biomarker domains, and measurement characteristics across neurological conditions.MethodsA scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR framework. Electronic databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for English-language studies published between January 2015 and May 2026. Eligible studies investigated wearable-derived digital biomarkers in neurological rehabilitation populations.ResultsA total of 56 studies were included in the review, with stroke (n = 29) and Parkinson disease (n = 10) representing the most frequently investigated neurological conditions. Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) based systems were reported in 34 studies, making them the predominant wearable technology. Kinematic biomarkers were the most commonly investigated biomarker domain, particularly in stroke (16/29) and Parkinson disease studies (9/10). In contrast, activity-based (2/5) and physiological biomarkers (2/5) were more prevalent in spinal cord injury research. Although several studies reported favorable validity and reliability of wearable-derived measures, substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies in sensor configurations, biomarker definitions, and validation methodologies.ConclusionWearable-derived digital biomarkers demonstrate considerable potential for objective and ecologically valid monitoring in neurological rehabilitation. However, methodological heterogeneity and limited longitudinal evidence indicate that clinical implementation remains at an early stage of development.
