Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33225302›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2020

Development and Verification of a Digital Twin Patient Model to Predict Specific Treatment Response During the First 24 Hours of Sepsis.

Amos Lal, Guangxi Li, Edin Cubro, Sarah Chalmers, Heyi Li, Vitaly Herasevich, Yue Dong, Brian W Pickering, Oguz Kilickaya, Ognjen Gajic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Towards generative digital twins in biomedical research.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Digital twins in medicine.Nature computational science · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Amos LalDepartment of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Guangxi LiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Critical Care, Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Edin CubroMultidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Sarah ChalmersDepartment of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Heyi LiDepartment of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Vitaly HerasevichDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Critical Care, Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Yue DongDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Critical Care, Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Brian W PickeringDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Critical Care, Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Oguz KilickayaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Altinbas University, Bahcelievler Medical Park Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ognjen GajicDepartment of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To develop and verify a digital twin model of critically ill patient using the causal artificial intelligence approach to predict the response to specific treatment during the first 24 hours of sepsis.

designDirected acyclic graphs were used to define explicitly the causal relationship among organ systems and specific treatments used. A hybrid approach of agent-based modeling, discrete-event simulation, and Bayesian network was used to simulate treatment effect across multiple stages and interactions of major organ systems (cardiovascular, neurologic, renal, respiratory, gastrointestinal, inflammatory, and hematology). Organ systems were visualized using relevant clinical markers. The application was iteratively revised and debugged by clinical experts and engineers. Agreement statistics was used to test the performance of the model by comparing the observed patient response versus the expected response (primary and secondary) predicted by digital twin.

settingMedical ICU of a large quaternary- care academic medical center in the United States. PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS: Adult (> 18 year yr old), medical ICU patients were included in the study.

interventionsNo additional interventions were made beyond the standard of care for this study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsDuring the verification phase, model performance was prospectively tested on 145 observations in a convenience sample of 29 patients. Median age was 60 years (54-66 d) with a median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 9.5 (interquartile range, 5.0-14.0). The most common source of sepsis was pneumonia, followed by hepatobiliary. The observations were made during the first 24 hours of the ICU admission with one-step interventions, comparing the output in the digital twin with the real patient response. The agreement between the observed versus and the expected response ranged from fair (kappa coefficient of 0.41) for primary response to good (kappa coefficient of 0.65) for secondary response to the intervention. The most common error detected was coding error in 50 observations (35%), followed by expert rule error in 29 observations (20%) and timing error in seven observations (5%).

conclusionsWe confirmed the feasibility of development and prospective testing of causal artificial intelligence model to predict the response to treatment in early stages of critical illness. The availability of qualitative and quantitative data and a relatively short turnaround time makes the ICU an ideal environment for development and testing of digital twin patient models. An accurate digital twin model will allow the effect of an intervention to be tested in a virtual environment prior to use on real patients.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecritical caredigital twindirected acyclic graphorgan failure

Identifiers

PMID33225302
PMCPMC7671877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.