Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37085850›Full record

ArticleBMC neurology2023

Developing DELPHI expert consensus rules for a digital twin model of acute stroke care in the neuro critical care unit.

Johnny Dang, Amos Lal, Amy Montgomery, Laure Flurin, John Litell, Ognjen Gajic, Alejandro Rabinstein, Digital Twin Platform for education, research, and healthcare delivery investigator group

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Digital Twins in Neuroscience.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. [Digital twin hospitals: transforming the future of healthcare].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2024
    Review
  11. Digital twins in medicine.Nature computational science · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Intelligent Digital Twins for Personalized Migraine Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Johnny DangDepartment of Neurology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA.
Amos LalDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA. Lal.Amos@mayo.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0021-2033
Amy MontgomeryDepartment of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Laure FlurinInfectious Diseases Research Laboratory, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
John LitellAbbott Northwestern Emergency Critical Care, Minneapolis, USA.
Ognjen GajicDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Alejandro RabinsteinDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Digital Twin Platform for education, research, and healthcare delivery investigator group
Mayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USAbbott Northwestern Hospital · USCleveland Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDigital twins, a form of artificial intelligence, are virtual representations of the physical world. In the past 20 years, digital twins have been utilized to track wind turbines' operations, monitor spacecraft's status, and even create a model of the Earth for climate research. While digital twins hold much promise for the neurocritical care unit, the question remains on how to best establish the rules that govern these models. This model will expand on our group's existing digital twin model for the treatment of sepsis.

methodsThe authors of this project collaborated to create a Direct Acyclic Graph (DAG) and an initial series of 20 DELPHI statements, each with six accompanying sub-statements that captured the pathophysiology surrounding the management of acute ischemic strokes in the practice of Neurocritical Care (NCC). Agreement from a panel of 18 experts in the field of NCC was collected through a 7-point Likert scale with consensus defined a-priori by ≥ 80% selection of a 6 ("agree") or 7 ("strongly agree"). The endpoint of the study was defined as the completion of three separate rounds of DELPHI consensus. DELPHI statements that had met consensus would not be included in subsequent rounds of DELPHI consensus. The authors refined DELPHI statements that did not reach consensus with the guidance of de-identified expert comments for subsequent rounds of DELPHI. All DELPHI statements that reached consensus by the end of three rounds of DELPHI consensus would go on to be used to inform the construction of the digital twin model.

resultsAfter the completion of three rounds of DELPHI, 93 (77.5%) statements reached consensus, 11 (9.2%) statements were excluded, and 16 (13.3%) statements did not reach a consensus of the original 120 DELPHI statements.

conclusionThis descriptive study demonstrates the use of the DELPHI process to generate consensus among experts and establish a set of rules for the development of a digital twin model for use in the neurologic ICU. Compared to associative models of AI, which develop rules based on finding associations in datasets, digital twin AI created by the DELPHI process are easily interpretable models based on a current understanding of underlying physiology.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceStrokeConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicCritical CareDelphi TechniqueHumansIntensive Care UnitsAcute Ischemic StrokeAIDELPHIDigital TwinExpert ConsensusNeuro Critical Care

Identifiers

PMID37085850
PMCPMC10121414
OpenAlexW4366742649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.