ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Digital twins support cross-modal and cross-centric classification of mild cognitive impairment.
Article in Communications medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeural recordings capture crucial pathophysiological processes along the dementia continuum. However, cross-center variability in recording techniques and paradigms limit their generalizability and diagnostic power, preventing clinical use. We here propose a computational approach enabling cross-center classification even in the presence of completely different clinical pipelines.
methodsWe leveraged a digital twin model to derive digital biomarkers linking neurodegeneration mechanisms to alterations in neural activity across multiple recording modalities. We tested the generalizability of digital biomarkers through cross-center classification of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and healthy subjects in two independent clinics. The two datasets presented different recording techniques (EEG and MEG), preprocessing modalities, recruitment criteria and diagnostic guidelines. Digital biomarkers derived from one clinic were tested for classifying patients in the other clinic and vice versa employing a transfer learning approach.
resultsDigital biomarkers outperform standard biomarkers in the MCI vs healthy classification in both separate datasets (83% vs 58% for EEG dataset and 75% vs 68% for MEG dataset). Moreover, they achieve accurate and consistent cross-center classification (77-78% accuracy), while standard biomarkers perform poorly in the generalization attempt (56-65%). Additionally, digital biomarkers reliably predict global cognitive status across clinics across both datasets ( p < 0.01), while standard biomarkers present no correlation.
conclusionsDigital biomarkers generalize across recording techniques and datasets, enabling a cross-modal and cross-center classification of a patient's condition. These biomarkers offer a robust measure of patient-specific neurodegeneration, mapping neural recordings anomalies into a common framework of underlying structural alterations. The vast differences between the two datasets support the applicability of this approach also in the presence of high inter-center variability.
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.