Health Digital Twins in Life Science and Health Care Innovation

Literature Cited

1. 1.

   Hou J, Zhao R, Gronsbell J, Beaulieu-Jones BK, Webber G et al. 2022. Harnessing electronic health records for real-world evidence. arXiv:2211.16609 [stat.AP]
2. 2.

   Acosta JN, Falcone GJ, Rajpurkar P, Topol EJ. 2022. Multimodal biomedical AI. Nat. Med. 28:1773–84
   [Google Scholar]
3. 3.

   Cuevas-Trisan R. 2017. Balance problems and fall risks in the elderly. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 28:727–37
   [Google Scholar]
4. 4.

   Grieves MW. 2005. Product lifecycle management: the new paradigm for enterprises. Int. J. Prod. Dev. 2:71–84
   [Google Scholar]
5. 5.

   Barricelli BR, Casiraghi E, Fogli D. 2019. A survey on digital twin: definitions, characteristics, applications, and design implications. IEEE Access 7:167653–71
   [Google Scholar]
6. 6.

   Glaessgen EH, Stargel DS. 2012. The digital twin paradigm for future NASA and U.S. Air Force vehicles Paper presented at the 53rd Structures Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference: Special Session on the Digital Twin Honolulu, HI: April 16. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20120008178
7. 7.

   Venkatesh KP, Raza MM, Kvedar JC. 2022. Health digital twins as tools for precision medicine: considerations for computation, implementation, and regulation. NPJ Digit. Med. 5:150
   [Google Scholar]
8. 8.

   Coorey G, Figtree GA, Fletcher DF, Snelson VJ, Vernon ST et al. 2022. The health digital twin to tackle cardiovascular disease—a review of an emerging interdisciplinary field. NPJ Digit. Med. 5:126
   [Google Scholar]
9. 9.

   Hingorani AD, Kuan V, Finan C, Kruger FA, Gaulton A et al. 2019. Improving the odds of drug development success through human genomics: modelling study. Sci. Rep. 9:18911
   [Google Scholar]
10. 10.

    Sun D, Gao W, Hu H, Zhou S. 2022. Why 90% of clinical drug development fails and how to improve it?. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 12:3049–62
    [Google Scholar]
11. 11.

    Fogel DB. 2018. Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: a review. Contemp. Clin. Trials Commun. 11:156–64
    [Google Scholar]
12. 12.

    Subramanian K. 2020. Digital twin for drug discovery and development—the virtual liver. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 100:653–62
    [Google Scholar]
13. 13.

    USP (US Pharmacop.) 2023. Dissolution and drug release tests. USP https://www.usp.org/small-molecules/dissolution
    [Google Scholar]
14. 14.

    Schütt M, Stamatopoulos K, Batchelor HK, Simmons MJH, Alexiadis A. 2022. Development of a digital twin of a tablet that mimics a real solid dosage form: differences in the dissolution profile in conventional mini-USP II and a biorelevant colon model. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 179:106310
    [Google Scholar]
15. 15.

    FDAReview.org 2023. The drug development and approval process. FDAReview.org https://www.fdareview.org/issues/the-drug-development-and-approval-process/
    [Google Scholar]
16. 16.

    FDA (US Food Drug Admin.) 2018. Step 3: clinical research. FDA https://www.fda.gov/patients/drug-development-process/step-3-clinical-research
    [Google Scholar]
17. 17.

    Fisher CK, Smith AM, Walsh JR. 2019. Machine learning for comprehensive forecasting of Alzheimer's disease progression. Sci. Rep. 9:13622
    [Google Scholar]
18. 18.

    PMC (Pers. Med. Coalition) 2020. The personalized medicine report: 2020—opportunity, challenges, and the future Rep. PMC Washington, DC: https://www.personalizedmedicinecoalition.org/Userfiles/PMC-Corporate/file/PMC_The_Personalized_Medicine_Report_Opportunity_Challenges_and_the_Future.pdf
19. 19.

    FDA (US Food Drug Admin.) 2013. Paving the way for personalized medicine: FDA's role in a new era of medical product development Rep. US Dept. Health Hum. Serv., FDA Silver Spring, MD: https://www.fdanews.com/ext/resources/files/10/10-28-13-Personalized-Medicine.pdf
20. 20.

    Li X, Lee EJ, Lilja S, Loscalzo J, Schäfer S et al. 2022. A dynamic single cell-based framework for digital twins to prioritize disease genes and drug targets. Genome Med. 14:48
    [Google Scholar]
21. 21.

    Pfister DG, Johnson DH, Azzoli CG, Sause W, Smith TJ et al. 2004. American Society of Clinical Oncology treatment of unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer guideline: update 2003. J. Clin. Oncol. 22:330–53
    [Google Scholar]
22. 22.

    Feng Y, Chen X, Yang M. 2018. An in silico investigation of a lobe-specific targeted pulmonary drug delivery method. Proceedings of the 2018 Design of Medical Devices Conference New York: Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1115/DMD2018-6928
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
23. 23.

    Feng Y, Chen X, Zhao J. 2018. Create the individualized digital twin for noninvasive precise pulmonary healthcare. Significances Bioeng. Biosci. 1:SBE.000507
    [Google Scholar]
24. 24.

    Bove LA. 2019. Increasing patient engagement through the use of wearable technology. J. Nurse Pract. 15:535–39
    [Google Scholar]
25. 25.

    Cunningham C, O'Sullivan R, Caserotti P, Tully MA 2020. Consequences of physical inactivity in older adults: a systematic review of reviews and meta-analyses. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 30:816–27
    [Google Scholar]
26. 26.

    Apple Support 2023. Use fall detection with Apple Watch. Apple Support. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208944
    [Google Scholar]
27. 27.

    Apple Support 2023. Use crash detection on iPhone or Apple Watch to call for help in an accident. Apple Support. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213225
    [Google Scholar]
28. 28.

    Su D, Liu Z, Jiang X, Zhang F, Yu W et al. 2021. Simple smartphone-based assessment of gait characteristics in Parkinson disease: validation study. JMIR mHealth uHealth 9:e25451
    [Google Scholar]
29. 29.

    Yodpijit N, Tavichaiyuth N, Jongprasithporn M, Songwongamarit C, Sittiwanchai T. 2017. The use of smartphone for gait analysis. 2017 3rd International Conference on Control, Automation and Robotics (ICCAR)543–46. New York: IEEE https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7942756
    [Google Scholar]
30. 30.

    Manocha A, Afaq Y, Bhatia M. 2023. Digital Twin-assisted Blockchain-inspired irregular event analysis for eldercare. Knowledge-Based Syst. 260:110138
    [Google Scholar]
31. 31.

    El Azzaoui A, Kim TW, Loia V, Park JH 2021. Blockchain-based secure digital twin framework for smart healthy city. Advanced Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering JJ Park, V Loia, Y Pan, Y Sung 107–13. Singapore: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
32. 32.

    Deren L, Wenbo Y, Zhenfeng S. 2021. Smart city based on digital twins. Comput. Urban Sci. 1:4
    [Google Scholar]
33. 33.

    Kamel Boulos MN, Yang SP 2021. Mobile physical activity planning and tracking: a brief overview of current options and desiderata for future solutions. mHealth 7:13
    [Google Scholar]
34. 34.

    Abràmoff MD, Tobey D, Char DS. 2020. Lessons learned about autonomous AI: finding a safe, efficacious, and ethical path through the development process. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 214:134–42
    [Google Scholar]
35. 35.

    Beauchamp T, Childress J. 1994. Principles of Biomedical Ethics New York: Oxford Univ. Press. , 4th ed..
36. 36.

    Abràmoff MD, Roehrenbeck C, Trujillo S, Goldstein J, Graves AS et al. 2022. A reimbursement framework for artificial intelligence in healthcare. NPJ Digit. Med. 5:72
    [Google Scholar]
37. 37.

    Venkatesh KP, Raza MM, Diao JA, Kvedar JC. 2022. Leveraging reimbursement strategies to guide value-based adoption and utilization of medical AI. NPJ Digit. Med. 5:112
    [Google Scholar]
38. 38.

    Chen MM, Golding LP, Nicola GN. 2021. Who will pay for AI?. Radiol. Artif. Intell. 3:e210030
    [Google Scholar]
39. 39.

    EDITH-CSA 2023. EDITH: European virtual human twin. EDITH-CSA https://www.edith-csa.eu/
    [Google Scholar]
40. 40.

    Schwartz SM, Wildenhaus K, Bucher A, Byrd B. 2020. Digital twins and the emerging science of self: implications for digital health experience design and “small” data. Front. Comput. Sci. 2:31
    [Google Scholar]
41. 41.

    Popa EO, van Hilten M, Oosterkamp E, Bogaardt M-J. 2021. The use of digital twins in healthcare: socio-ethical benefits and socio-ethical risks. Life Sci. Soc. Policy 17:6
    [Google Scholar]
42. 42.

    Dutton G. 2022. Digital twin studies: the next inflection in equal, equitable, healthcare. BioSpace Mar. 16. https://www.biospace.com/article/digital-twins-studies-open-door-to-next-inflection-in-equal-equitable-healthcare/
    [Google Scholar]
43. 43.

    Armeni P, Polat I, De Rossi LM, Diaferia L, Meregalli S et al. 2022. Digital twins in healthcare: Is it the beginning of a new era of evidence-based medicine? A critical review. J. Pers. Med. 12:1255
    [Google Scholar]
44. 44.

    Lal A, Dang J, Nabzdyk C, Gajic O, Herasevich V. 2022. Regulatory oversight and ethical concerns surrounding software as medical device (SaMD) and digital twin technology in healthcare. Ann. Transl. Med. 10:950
    [Google Scholar]
45. 45.

    Asan O, Bayrak AE, Choudhury A. 2020. Artificial intelligence and human trust in healthcare: focus on clinicians. J. Med. Internet Res. 22:e15154
    [Google Scholar]
46. 46.

    Kamel Boulos MN, Zhang P. 2021. Digital twins: from personalised medicine to precision public health. J. Pers. Med. 11:745
    [Google Scholar]
47. 47.

    Laubenbacher R, Sluka JP, Glazier JA. 2021. Using digital twins in viral infection. Science 371:65341105–6
    [Google Scholar]
48. 48.

    Voigt I, Inojosa H, Dillenseger A, Haase R, Akgün K, Ziemssen T. 2021. Digital twins for multiple sclerosis. Front Immunol 12:669811
    [Google Scholar]
49. 49.

    Zhang P, Kamel Boulos MN. 2022. Privacy-by-design environments for large-scale health research and federated learning from data. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 19:1911876
    [Google Scholar]