REVIEW 1 cited by
Challenges and opportunities for digital twins in precision medicine: a complex systems perspective
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Challenges and opportunities for digital twins in precision medicine: a complex systems perspective
read the original abstract
The adoption of digital twins (DTs) in precision medicine is increasingly viable, propelled by extensive data collection and advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), alongside traditional biomedical methodologies. However, the reliance on black-box predictive models, which utilize large datasets, presents limitations that could impede the broader application of DTs in clinical settings. We argue that hypothesis-driven generative models, particularly multiscale modeling, are essential for boosting the clinical accuracy and relevance of DTs, thereby making a significant impact on healthcare innovation. This paper explores the transformative potential of DTs in healthcare, emphasizing their capability to simulate complex, interdependent biological processes across multiple scales. By integrating generative models with extensive datasets, we propose a scenario-based modeling approach that enables the exploration of diverse therapeutic strategies, thus supporting dynamic clinical decision-making. This method not only leverages advancements in data science and big data for improving disease treatment and prevention but also incorporates insights from complex systems and network science, quantitative biology, and digital medicine, promising substantial advancements in patient care.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Federated Deep Learning for Privacy-Preserving Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction
FedAvg DeepSurv across Lifelines (n=148k, self-report) and Rotterdam Study (n=10k, linked outcomes) raised C-statistics from 0.728 to 0.739 and 0.783 to 0.787 versus local training.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.