journal article Nov 13, 2024

Definitions and Characteristics of Patient Digital Twins Being Developed for Clinical Use: Scoping Review

Abstract
Background
The concept of digital twins, widely adopted in industry, is entering health care. However, there is a lack of consensus on what constitutes the digital twin of a patient.


Objective
The objective of this scoping review was to analyze definitions and characteristics of patient digital twins being developed for clinical use, as reported in the scientific literature.


Methods
We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, IEEE, and Google Scholar for studies claiming digital twin development or evaluation until August 2023. Data on definitions, characteristics, and development phase were extracted. Unsupervised classification of claimed digital twins was performed.


Results
We identified 86 papers representing 80 unique claimed digital twins, with 98% (78/80) in preclinical phases. Among the 55 papers defining “digital twin,” 76% (42/55) described a digital replica, 42% (23/55) mentioned real-time updates, 24% (13/55) emphasized patient specificity, and 15% (8/55) included 2-way communication. Among claimed digital twins, 60% (48/80) represented specific organs (primarily heart: 15/48, 31%; bones or joints: 10/48, 21%; lung: 6/48, 12%; and arteries: 5/48, 10%); 14% (11/80) embodied biological systems such as the immune system; and 26% (21/80) corresponded to other products (prediction models, etc). The patient data used to develop and run the claimed digital twins encompassed medical imaging examinations (35/80, 44% of publications), clinical notes (15/80, 19% of publications), laboratory test results (13/80, 16% of publications), wearable device data (12/80, 15% of publications), and other modalities (32/80, 40% of publications). Regarding data flow between patients and their virtual counterparts, 16% (13/80) claimed that digital twins involved no flow from patient to digital twin, 73% (58/80) used 1-way flow from patient to digital twin, and 11% (9/80) enabled 2-way data flow between patient and digital twin. Based on these characteristics, unsupervised classification revealed 3 clusters: simulation patient digital twins in 54% (43/80) of publications, monitoring patient digital twins in 28% (22/80) of publications, and research-oriented models unlinked to specific patients in 19% (15/80) of publications. Simulation patient digital twins used computational modeling for personalized predictions and therapy evaluations, mostly for one-time assessments, and monitoring digital twins harnessed aggregated patient data for continuous risk or outcome forecasting and care optimization.


Conclusions
We propose defining a patient digital twin as “a viewable digital replica of a patient, organ, or biological system that contains multidimensional, patient-specific information and informs decisions” and to distinguish simulation and monitoring digital twins. These proposed definitions and subtypes offer a framework to guide research into realizing the potential of these personalized, integrative technologies to advance clinical care.
Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References
120
[5]
Schwab, K The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2017)
[6]
Grieves, M Digital Twin: Manufacturing Excellence through Virtual Factory Replication (2015)
[7]
Shafto, M NASA (2010)
[11]
Casola, L Opportunities and Challenges for Digital Twins in Biomedical Research: Proceedings of a Workshop-in Brief (2023)
[14]
Digital twin in healthcare: Recent updates and challenges

Tianze Sun, Xiwang He, Zhangqiang Li

DIGITAL HEALTH 10.1177/20552076221149651
[15]
Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews

Micah D.J. Peters, Casey Marnie, Andrea C. Tricco et al.

JBI Evidence Synthesis 10.11124/jbies-20-00167
[16]
Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols

Micah D.J. Peters, Christina Godfrey, Patricia McInerney et al.

JBI Evidence Synthesis 10.11124/jbies-21-00242
[17]
Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews

Micah D.J. Peters, Christina M. Godfrey, Hanan Khalil et al.

International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000050
[18]
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Andrea C. Tricco, Erin Lillie, Wasifa Zarin et al.

Annals of Internal Medicine 10.7326/m18-0850
[19]
AromatarisEMunnZJBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis20242024-02-08https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL
[20]
Scoping review of patient digital twinsOSF20242024-05-30https://osf.io/7twn8/
[21]
Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz et al.

Systematic Reviews 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
[24]
van der LaanMPollardKBryanJA new partitioning around medoids algorithmUC Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper20022024-10-11https://biostats.bepress.com/ucbbiostat/paper105
[48]
Automated Framework for the Inclusion of a His–Purkinje System in Cardiac Digital Twins of Ventricular Electrophysiology

Karli Gillette, Matthias A. F. Gsell, Julien Bouyssier et al.

Annals of Biomedical Engineering 10.1007/s10439-021-02825-9
[50]
Uncertainty Quantification of Regional Cardiac Tissue Properties in Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy Using Adaptive Multiple Importance Sampling

Nick van Osta, Feddo P. Kirkels, Tim van Loon et al.

Frontiers in Physiology 10.3389/fphys.2021.738926

Showing 50 of 120 references

Metrics
40
Citations
120
References
Details
Published
Nov 13, 2024
Vol/Issue
26
Pages
e58504
Cite This Article
David Drummond, Apolline Gonsard (2024). Definitions and Characteristics of Patient Digital Twins Being Developed for Clinical Use: Scoping Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, e58504. https://doi.org/10.2196/58504