ArticleBioData mining2025
Enhancing clinical outcome predictions through effective sample size evaluation in graph-based digital twin modeling.
Article in BioData mining, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Digital twins in urology: a vision for the future of urological practice.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Digital twins in healthcare offer an innovative approach to precision diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. SynTwin, a novel computational methodology to generate digital twins using synthetic data and network science, has previously shown promise for improving prediction of breast cancer mortality. In this study, we validate SynTwin using population-level data for different cancer types from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program from the National Cancer Institute (USA). We assess its predictive accuracy across cancer types of varying sample sizes (n = 1,000 to 30,000 records), mortality rates (35% to 60%), and study designs, revealing insights into the strengths and limitations of digital twins derived from synthetic data in mortality prediction. We also evaluate the effect of sample size (n = 1,000 to 70,000 records) on predictive accuracy for selected cancers (non-Hodgkin lymphoma, bladder, and colorectal cancers). Our results indicate that for larger datasets (n > 10,000) including digital twins in the nearest network neighbor prediction model significantly improves the performance compared to using real patients alone. Specifically, AUROCs ranged from 0.828 to 0.884 for cancers such as cervix uteri and ovarian cancer with digital twins, compared to 0.720 to 0.858 when using real patient data. Similarly, among the selected three cancers, AUROCs using digital twins exceeded AUROCs using real patients alone by at least 0.06 with narrowing variance in performance as the sample size increased. These results highlight the benefit of network-based digital twins, while emphasizing the importance of considering effective sample size when developing predictive models like SynTwin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.