ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Digital Twin Model of Treatment Outcomes in Post-Stroke Aphasia.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Recovery from chronic post-stroke aphasia is highly heterogeneous and shaped by lesion characteristics, brain integrity, and systemic health. Traditional group-level models struggle to capture this multidimensional, dynamic variability. Digital twin approaches - patient-specific, continually updating models - may enable individualized prediction and counterfactual evaluation of modifiable risk factors. Therefore, the aim was to develop and validate a proof-of-concept digital twin that predicts individual naming outcomes during language treatment and quantifies the estimated impact of modifiable health factors on naming. This study represents the first application of digital twin modeling to aphasia recovery, and we hypothesize that this could constitute a critical first step toward dynamically adaptive, personalized models for aphasia rehabilitation. Methods: We analyzed longitudinal data from 106 chronic stroke survivors with aphasia enrolled in the POLAR randomized clinical trial. For each participant we combined baseline demographic/health variables (age, sex, education, days post-stroke, hypertension, diabetes, BMI), lesion load in left-hemisphere language ROIs (JHU atlas), ROI-level white-matter microstructure (FA), and resting-state functional connectivity restricted to language regions. A continual-learning linear model (River framework; Adam optimizer) was pretrained on baseline data and updated across timepoints. Model performance was assessed by R Results: The digital twin predicted final PNT scores with R Conclusions: This study demonstrate the feasibility and clinical potential of applying a digital twin framework to chronic post-stroke aphasia, with the model successfully predicting more than half the variance in naming performance during language treatment. Through counterfactual simulation, we demonstrated that modifiable health factors exert measurable, bidirectional influences on predicted treatment outcomes, underscoring the role of systemic health in shaping language recovery. Although the individual effects of these factors were modest in magnitude, their cumulative influence on treatment gains illustrates how multiple small biological contributors can add up to shape meaningful differences in language outcomes. More broadly, these findings illustrate the potential value of digital twin models for aphasia treatment, particularly as a tool to integrate diverse biological factors and generate individualized, dynamically updated predictions.
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.