ArticleDigital health
Toward demographic robustness in digital patient twins: Addressing the gender data gap.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causal inference and digital twins: a roadmap for the future of clinical trials.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- Response to Wright's (2025) "Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes".Archives of sexual behavior · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.