ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Data-driven discovery of digital twins in biomedical research.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. 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.
- Generative artificial intelligence in animal genomics for smart agriculture: Applications, challenges, and future prospects.Veterinary and animal science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent technological advances have expanded the availability of high-throughput biological datasets, opening the way to the reliable design of digital twins of biomedical systems or patients. Such computational tools represent key chemical reaction networks driving perturbation or drug response and can profoundly guide drug discovery and personalized therapeutics. Yet, their development still depends on laborious data integration by the human modeler, so that automated approaches are critically needed. The successes of data-driven system discovery in Physics, rooted in clean datasets and well-defined governing laws, have fueled interest in applying similar techniques in Biology, which presents unique challenges. Here, we reviewed 177 methodologies for automatically inferring digital twins from biological time series, which mostly involved symbolic or sparse regression, and recapitulated them in a Shiny app. We evaluated algorithms according to eight biological and methodological challenges, associated with integrating noisy/incomplete data, multiple conditions, prior knowledge, latent variables, or dealing with high dimensionality, unobserved variable derivatives, candidate library design, and uncertainty quantification. Upon these criteria, sparse regression generally outperformed symbolic regression, particularly when using Bayesian frameworks. Next, deep learning and large language models further emerge as innovative tools to integrate prior knowledge, although their reliability and consistency need to be improved. While no single method addresses all challenges, we argue that progress in learning digital twins will come from hybrid and modular frameworks combining chemical reaction network-based mechanistic grounding, Bayesian uncertainty quantification, and the generative and knowledge integration capacities of deep learning. To support their development, we further highlight key components required for future benchmark development to evaluate methods across all challenges.
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.