Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41195379›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Toward demographic robustness in digital patient twins: Addressing the gender data gap.

Dana Mahr, Meike Hebich, Nora Weinberger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Dana MahrInstitute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2214-7761
Meike HebichKIT-Center Humans and Technology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Nora WeinbergerInstitute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1148-7470

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this opinion piece, we argue that sex- and gender-based equity must become a foundational criterion in the design and implementation of digital patient twins. Digital patient twins offer a promising avenue for precision medicine by simulating individual health states and treatment responses. However, their clinical utility and fairness depend on whether diverse patient populations are adequately represented and accounted for in the data and devices on which these models are built. Drawing on evidence from cardiology, endocrinology, mental health, and medical device research, this article shows how current digital patient twin initiatives often overrepresent male, white, and socioeconomically privileged populations, while women, gender-diverse individuals, and people of color remain underrepresented. These imbalances can lead to systematic misdiagnoses, misinterpretation of physiological variation, and measurement inaccuracies. Documented examples include under-recognition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in women, omission of menstrual cycle-related changes in glycemic control, underdiagnosis of depression in women by speech-based AI models, and oxygen saturation overestimation in patients with darker skin tones. We argue that these disparities are rooted in structural biases in clinical research and are perpetuated when sex- and gender-specific variables, intersectional factors, and subgroup validation are absent from model design. Addressing these limitations requires balanced data representation, integration of sex- and gender-informed knowledge, participatory design with diverse patient groups, subgroup performance testing, transparent reporting, and mitigation of device-related bias. We contend that these are not optional refinements but prerequisites for realizing the promise of personalized care without reproducing or deepening existing health inequities.

Indexed as

bias in AIDigital patient twinsgender data gaphealth equityprecision medicinesex and gender differences

Identifiers

PMID41195379
PMCPMC12583872

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.