Validating medical digital twins for clinical decision support: beyond predictive accuracy.

IF 4.7 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
JAMIA Open Pub Date : 2026-08-04 eCollection Date: 2026-08-01 DOI:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooag160
Alexandre Vallée
{"title":"Validating medical digital twins for clinical decision support: beyond predictive accuracy.","authors":"Alexandre Vallée","doi":"10.1093/jamiaopen/ooag160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To clarify how validation requirements should be specified for medical digital twins used in clinical decision support, particularly when such systems are intended to compare interventions, treatment timings, dosages, or sequential care strategies.</p><p><strong>Perspective: </strong>Medical digital twins are heterogeneous systems that may combine prediction, simulation, mechanistic modeling, machine learning, data assimilation, uncertainty quantification, and decision-support functions. Their evaluation should therefore be driven by their intended use rather than by a single definition of what a digital twin is. For digital twins used primarily for visualization, monitoring, or short-term forecasting, predictive accuracy, calibration, discrimination, and robustness may be the central validation targets. However, when digital twins are used to support intervention-oriented clinical decisions, retrospective accuracy under historical clinical practice is insufficient on its own.</p><p><strong>Key message: </strong>Intervention-oriented digital twins address action-conditioned questions: what is predicted to happen under specified alternative actions, assumptions, time horizons, and clinical contexts. Their validation should therefore extend beyond scalar performance metrics to include uncertainty representation, updating stability, robustness under regime change, action-regime validity, counterfactual consistency, clinically weighted error, and decision-level consequences. This requires drawing on established traditions in forecast verification, causal inference, uncertainty quantification, model verification and validation, decision theory, control theory, and post-deployment monitoring. The level of causal or mechanistic support required should match the clinical claim being made, whether at the genotype, phenotype, physiological, or care-process level.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The scientific-instrument framing is proposed as a pragmatic validation lens for intervention-oriented digital twins, not as a universal definition of digital twins. It helps define the scope within which their outputs can support clinical reasoning. Medical digital twins should be accompanied by explicit validation statements specifying their target population, prediction horizon, supported interventions, uncertainty bounds, and known failure conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":36278,"journal":{"name":"JAMIA Open","volume":"9 4","pages":"ooag160"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13436594/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMIA Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooag160","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To clarify how validation requirements should be specified for medical digital twins used in clinical decision support, particularly when such systems are intended to compare interventions, treatment timings, dosages, or sequential care strategies.

Perspective: Medical digital twins are heterogeneous systems that may combine prediction, simulation, mechanistic modeling, machine learning, data assimilation, uncertainty quantification, and decision-support functions. Their evaluation should therefore be driven by their intended use rather than by a single definition of what a digital twin is. For digital twins used primarily for visualization, monitoring, or short-term forecasting, predictive accuracy, calibration, discrimination, and robustness may be the central validation targets. However, when digital twins are used to support intervention-oriented clinical decisions, retrospective accuracy under historical clinical practice is insufficient on its own.

Key message: Intervention-oriented digital twins address action-conditioned questions: what is predicted to happen under specified alternative actions, assumptions, time horizons, and clinical contexts. Their validation should therefore extend beyond scalar performance metrics to include uncertainty representation, updating stability, robustness under regime change, action-regime validity, counterfactual consistency, clinically weighted error, and decision-level consequences. This requires drawing on established traditions in forecast verification, causal inference, uncertainty quantification, model verification and validation, decision theory, control theory, and post-deployment monitoring. The level of causal or mechanistic support required should match the clinical claim being made, whether at the genotype, phenotype, physiological, or care-process level.

Conclusion: The scientific-instrument framing is proposed as a pragmatic validation lens for intervention-oriented digital twins, not as a universal definition of digital twins. It helps define the scope within which their outputs can support clinical reasoning. Medical digital twins should be accompanied by explicit validation statements specifying their target population, prediction horizon, supported interventions, uncertainty bounds, and known failure conditions.

验证医学数字双胞胎用于临床决策支持:超越预测准确性。
目的:阐明临床决策支持中使用的医学数字双胞胎的验证要求,特别是当这些系统旨在比较干预措施、治疗时间、剂量或顺序护理策略时。视角:医学数字孪生是一种异构系统,可以结合预测、模拟、机制建模、机器学习、数据同化、不确定性量化和决策支持功能。因此,它们的评估应该由它们的预期用途驱动,而不是由数字孪生的单一定义驱动。对于主要用于可视化、监测或短期预测的数字孪生,预测准确性、校准、辨别和稳健性可能是中心验证目标。然而,当使用数字双胞胎来支持以干预为导向的临床决策时,历史临床实践下的回顾性准确性本身是不足的。关键信息:以干预为导向的数字孪生解决了行动条件问题:在特定的替代行动、假设、时间范围和临床背景下预测会发生什么。因此,它们的验证应该超越标量性能指标,包括不确定性表示、更新稳定性、制度变化下的稳健性、行动-制度有效性、反事实一致性、临床加权误差和决策级后果。这需要借鉴在预测验证、因果推理、不确定性量化、模型验证和确认、决策理论、控制理论和部署后监测方面的既定传统。无论是在基因型、表型、生理还是护理过程水平上,所需的因果或机制支持水平应与临床声明相匹配。结论:科学仪器框架被提出作为以干预为导向的数字双胞胎的实用验证镜头,而不是作为数字双胞胎的通用定义。它有助于确定他们的产出可以支持临床推理的范围。医疗数字双胞胎应附有明确的验证声明,指定其目标人群、预测范围、支持的干预措施、不确定性界限和已知的失败条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JAMIA Open
JAMIA Open Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
102
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书