ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025
Harnessing the power of virtual (digital) twins: Graphical causal tools for understanding patient and hospital differences.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validating medical digital twins for clinical decision support: beyond predictive accuracy.JAMIA open · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional methods for evaluating hospital performance, such as regression or propensity score analysis, offer population-level comparisons but lack the granularity required for patient-level insight. We propose a causal framework based on virtual (digital) twins, enabling counterfactual outcome comparisons for individual patients across hospitals. Using data from the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Quality Gateway Adult Cardiac Database, which includes 52,792 surgeries across 19 hospitals, we estimate patient-level causal effects for adverse surgical outcomes. Our approach combines model-free variable priority screening, random forests quantile classification (RFQ) for handling rare events, and isolation forests to assess treatment overlap and exclude invalid counterfactuals. Building on prior work, we introduce graphical tools for overlap diagnostics and counterfactual visualization at both the institutional and patient level. These tools reframe outcome modeling as individualized causal inference and support transparent, patient-centered hospital benchmarking.
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.