ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2026
A digital twin methodology using retrospective patient data for sample size reduction in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.
Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 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.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecruitment for Alzheimer’s disease randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is difficult and expensive. To reduce RCT sample sizes while maintaining high statistical power, our Digital Twin Trial (DTT) methodology combines an interpretable cognitive decline prediction model with prediction-powered inference. Unlike RCT sample size reduction techniques that maintain power by recruiting only patients likely to decline, prediction-powered inference is used within the data analysis stage of the trial and does not impose additional restrictions on participant eligibility.
methodsFor DTT participants, our model identifies similar individuals (“Digital Twins”) from a retrospective trial-matched database and uses their cognitive scores to predict decline. Predictions adjust observed scores, reducing variance within treatment groups. We simulated 18-month DTTs and standard RCTs using mixed effects models of decline in Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative subjects meeting lecanemab’s Phase 3 inclusion criteria.
resultsPredicted and observed change in Clinical Dementia Rating Sum-of-Boxes correlated at r = 0.437. DTTs required 9.5–19.0% fewer subjects than standard RCTs to detect a simulated 25% decline-slowing drug effect at 0.9 power. DTT Type 1 error was consistent with 0.05.
conclusionsDTTs could reduce clinical trial recruitment and cost burdens without imposing additional inclusion criteria, enabling efficient testing of new treatments in all populations who might benefit. Model interpretability will foster clinician and regulator trust in individualized prognoses. This transparency could help smooth the model’s translation to real trials and eventually the clinic, where it could help make prognoses and better evaluate treatment effects in individual patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42046101What 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.