Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41487956›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025

The next frontier in healthcare: perspectives and discussion on building trust and societal acceptance of digital humans in the essential framework of impact biomechanics.

Sebastien Roth

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

1 author.

Sebastien RothLaboratoire Interdisciplinaire Carnot de Bourgogne, UMR CNRS 6303 / Université de Technologie de Belfort-Montbéliard, Belfort, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The digital twin: this term present in many scientific fields corresponds to a virtual model of a physical object. Used in several framework on the physics, the digital twin must be fidelic to reality, by closely reproducing the behavior and interaction with its environment. However, it is necessary, before using such a tool, to ensure that it is indeed realistic. In the context of impact biomechanics, one of the objectives of which is to understand the mechanisms of injury occurrence and the tolerance threshold, and ultimately to allow optimization of protective systems that would reduce the risk of injury occurrence, the concept of the digital twin relates to the development of a numerical model that must be biofidelic before it can be used for the development of protection systems. This paper raises the question of the biofidelity and the protecting ability of a digital twin and how one can trust the digital procedure to develop protecting devices, without data coming from physical procedures.

Indexed as

digital twinshuman body modelsimpact biomechanicsmodels validationsnumerical simulationssocietal acceptabilitytrust

Identifiers

PMID41487956
PMCPMC12757698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.