ReviewUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Digital twins in uro-oncology].
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
42018198What 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.