Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41341463›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in digital health2025

Digital twins in healthcare: a comprehensive review and future directions.

Hamid Khoshfekr Rudsari, Becky Tseng, Hongxu Zhu, Lulu Song, Chunhui Gu, Abhishikta Roy, Ehsan Irajizad, Joseph Butner, James Long, Kim-Anh Do

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. From genes to germ layers: virtual twins of gastruloids.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Hamid Khoshfekr RudsariDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Becky TsengDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Hongxu ZhuDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Lulu SongDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Chunhui GuDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Abhishikta RoyDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Ehsan IrajizadDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Joseph ButnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
James LongDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Kim-Anh DoDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital Twin (DT) technology has emerged as a transformative force in healthcare, offering unprecedented opportunities for personalized medicine, treatment optimization, and disease prevention. This comprehensive review examines the current state of DTs in healthcare, analyzing their implementation across different physiological levels-from cellular to whole-body systems. We systematically review the latest developments, methodologies, and applications while identifying challenges and opportunities. Our analysis encompasses technical frameworks for cardiovascular, neurological, respiratory, metabolic, hepatic, oncological, and cellular DTs, highlighting significant achievements such as population-scale cardiac modeling (3,461 patient cohort), reduced atrial fibrillation recurrence rates through patient-specific cardiac models, improved brain tumor radiotherapy planning, advanced liver regeneration modeling with real-time simulation capabilities, and enhanced glucose management in diabetes. We detail the methodological foundations supporting different DT implementations, including data acquisition strategies, physics-based modeling approaches, statistical learning algorithms, neural network-based control systems, and emerging artificial intelligence techniques. While discussing implementation challenges related to data quality, computational constraints, and validation requirements, we provide a forward-looking perspective on future opportunities for enhanced personalization, expanded application areas, and integration with emerging technologies. This review offers a multidimensional assessment of healthcare DTs and outlines future directions for their development and integration. This review demonstrates that while healthcare DTs have achieved remarkable clinical successes-from reducing cardiac arrhythmia recurrence rates by over 13% to enabling 97% accuracy in neurodegenerative disease prediction, and achieving sub-millisecond liver response predictions with high accuracy-their clinical translation requires addressing challenges such as data integration, computational scalability, digital equity, and validation frameworks.

Indexed as

AI in medicinecomputational medicinedigital twinhealthcare modelingpatient-specific modelspersonalized medicinepredictive healthcarevirtual simulation

Identifiers

PMID41341463
PMCPMC12671388

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.