Digital Representation of Patients as Medical Digital Twins: Data-Centric Viewpoint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled: Precision medicine involves a paradigm shift toward personalized data-driven clinical decisions. The concept of a medical "digital twin" has recently become popular to designate digital representations of patients as a support for a wide range of data science applications. However, the concept is ambiguous when it comes to practical implementations. Here, we propose a medical digital twin framework with a data-centric approach. We argue that a single digital representation of patients cannot support all the data uses of digital twins for technical and regulatory reasons. Instead, we propose a data architecture leveraging three main families of digital representations: (1) multimodal dashboards integrating various raw health records at points of care to assist with perception and documentation, (2) virtual patients, which provide nonsensitive data for collective secondary uses, and (3) individual predictions that support clinical decisions. For a given patient, multiple digital representations may be generated according to the different clinical pathways the patient goes through, each tailored to balance the trade-offs associated with the respective intended uses. Therefore, our proposed framework conceives the medical digital twin as a data architecture leveraging several digital representations of patients along clinical pathways.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".