ReviewDiscover mental health2026
Digital doppelgangers in psychiatry.
Review in Discover mental health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital doppelgangers are individualized, continuously updated digital representations of a person constructed from behavioral, physiological, and contextual data streams, including smartphone metadata, wearable sensor outputs, social media activity, and environmental sensors. Whereas conventional digital twins in physical medicine primarily replicate anatomical structures and physiological parameters, psychiatric digital doppelgangers are designed to capture dynamic mental states, emotional trajectories, and behavioral pathways through aggregated multimodal digital traces. Preliminary research suggests potential clinical utility across several domains, including earlier detection of depressive and bipolar episodes, risk stratification for suicidal crises, and individualized treatment planning; however, most applications remain at the feasibility and proof-of-concept stage and have not yet achieved prospective clinical validation. Implementation raises substantive challenges, including informed-consent complexity under fluctuating decisional capacity, algorithmic bias arising from non-representative training datasets, diagnostic ambiguity in the interpretation of behavioral signals, inequitable access to required technology infrastructure, and the risk of reconfiguring the therapeutic relationship into a surveillance mechanism. Responsible development requires interdisciplinary collaboration among clinicians, technologists, ethicists, regulators, and patient communities, alongside robust ethical frameworks, prospective validation regimes, and genuine patient partnership throughout the development cycle. Digital doppelgangers represent a conceptually distinct but adjacent framework to digital twins, digital phenotyping, and AI-driven cognitive science models; their trajectory in psychiatry depends on whether technological ambition is matched by equally rigorous governance and a primary commitment to patient welfare.
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.