Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42018198›Full record

ReviewUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026

[Digital twins in uro-oncology].

Johanna Smielowski, Maximilian Glienke, Sherif Mehralivand, Gregor Duwe, Felix Chun, Hendrik Borgmann, Magdalena Görtz

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Johanna SmielowskiUrologische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Maximilian GlienkeKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland.
Sherif MehralivandKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
Gregor DuweKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz, Deutschland.
Felix ChunKlinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
Hendrik BorgmannMedizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg an der Havel, Deutschland.
Magdalena GörtzUrologische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland. magdalena.goertz@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUro-oncology is moving toward precision medicine, driven by high-dimensional longitudinal data from imaging, pathology, molecular profiling, and follow-up. However, clinical decision-making often relies on static risk scores that cannot fully capture individual disease dynamics. Digital twins aim to integrate multimodal patient data and to provide patient-specific, dynamically updated simulation models, thereby enabling "what-if" testing of interventions.

objectiveHow is a medical digital twin defined, which data foundation is available in uro-oncology, and which clinical use cases can be envisaged?

methodsThis work comprises a narrative review including a description of the digital twin concept, a structured presentation of multimodal data (laboratory parameters, imaging, pathology, omics, long-term outcomes), and an overview of representative published applications (e.g., tumor growth reconstruction, virtual pathology, surgical 3D twins).

resultsCurrent digital twin research in uro-oncology largely represents partial digital twins (e.g., tumor progression models, virtual assessment, patient-specific 3D surgical planning). Potential clinical value of digital twins includes dynamic risk stratification, individualized treatment planning, and adaptive follow-up strategies. Major limitations relate to data quality, interoperability, external validation, interpretability, data privacy, and regulatory requirements for clinical deployment.

conclusionDigital twins have the potential to enable a new era of predictive precision medicine in uro-oncology. Progress toward clinically actionable digital twins requires multimodal architectures, rigorous monitoring, and seamless integration into clinical workflows under robust governance and regulatory frameworks.

Indexed as

Digital HealthMedical OncologyPrecision MedicineUrologic NeoplasmsHumansArtificial intelligenceMultimodal data integrationPrecision medicineRisk stratificationTumor growth

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.