ArticleScientific reports2024
ClinicalGAN: powering patient monitoring in clinical trials with patient digital twins.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal artificial intelligence and machine learning in oncology: from data integration to precision cancer care.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Enhancing randomized clinical trials with digital twins.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2025Review
- A scoping review of human digital twins in healthcare applications and usage patterns.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Synthetic generation of cardiac tissue motion from surface electrocardiograms.Nature cardiovascular research · 2025Article
- A Deployed Online Reinforcement Learning Algorithm In An Oral Health Clinical Trial.Proceedings of the ... AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2025Article
- Digital twins in healthcare: a comprehensive review and future directions.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Conducting clinical trials is becoming increasingly challenging lately due to spiraling costs, increased time to market, and high failure rates. Patient recruitment and retention is one of the key challenges that impact 90% of the trials directly. While a lot of attention has been given to optimizing patient recruitment, limited progress has been made towards developing comprehensive clinical trial monitoring systems to determine patients at risk and potentially improve patient retention through the right intervention at the right time. Earlier research in patient retention primarily focused on using deterministic frameworks to model the inherently stochastic patient journey process. Existing generative approaches to model temporal data such as TimeGAN or CRBM , face challenges and fail to address key requirements such as personalized generation, variable patient journey, and multi-variate time-series needed to model patient digital twin. In response to these challenges, current research proposes ClinicalGAN to enable patient level generation, effectively creating a patient's digital twin. ClinicalGAN provides capabilities for: (a) patient-level personalized generation by utilizing patient meta-data for conditional generation; (b) dynamic termination prediction to enable pro-active patient monitoring for improved patient retention; (c) multi-variate time-series training to incorporate relationship and dependencies among different tests measures captured during patient journey. The proposed solution is validated on two Alzheimer's clinical trial datasets and the results are benchmarked across multiple dimensions of generation quality. Empirical results demonstrate that the proposed ClinicalGAN outperforms the SOTA approach by 3-4
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.