Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39022372›Full record

ArticleAsian bioethics review2024

Navigating the Landscape of Digital Twins in Medicine: A Relational Bioethical Inquiry.

Brandon Ferlito, Michiel De Proost, Seppe Segers

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Asian bioethics review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A survey on ethical digital twins in healthcare.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Enhancing randomized clinical trials with digital twins.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2025
    Review
  4. 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

3 authors.

Brandon FerlitoBioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4662-9528
Michiel De ProostBioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-0545-8515
Seppe SegersBioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8231-6487

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This perspective article explores the use of digital twins (DTs) in medicine, highlighting its capacity to simulate risks and personalize treatments while examining the emerging bioethical concerns. Central concerns include power dynamics, exclusion, and misrepresentation. We propose adopting a relational bioethical approach that advocates for a comprehensive assessment of DTs in medicine, extending beyond individual interactions to consider broader structural relations and varying levels of access to power. This can be achieved through two key relational recommendations: acknowledging the impact of uneven relational structures on access to medical care and promoting social justice by evaluating resource allocation. While DTs in medicine offer promising advancements, a relational bioethical lens may provide a nuanced understanding, fostering equitable, inclusive and responsible integration of DTs into medical practice.

Indexed as

Digital twinsEquityPersonalized medicineRelational bioethicsRepresentationSocial justice

Identifiers

PMID39022372
PMCPMC11250715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.