Key result
Medicine-Based Evidence, utilizing artificial intelligence and digital twins, offers a promising framework to personalize treatment decisions for patients with congenital heart disease.
Why the study?
Randomized controlled trials are difficult to conduct and often fail to provide definitive solutions in congenital heart disease due to small patient numbers, clinical complexity, and heterogeneity.
Medicine-Based Evidence leveraging AI and digital twins offers a promising personalized approach to clinical decision-making in congenital heart disease, where traditional RCTs are often inadequate.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Should not yet guide congenital heart disease decisions; leaves open prospective validation of AI-digital twin frameworks.
Built on the foundation of the randomized controlled trial (RCT), Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) is at its best when optimizing outcomes for homogeneous cohorts of patients like those participating in an RCT. Its weakness is a failure to resolve a clinical quandary: patients appear for care individually, each may differ in important ways from an RCT cohort, and the physician will wonder each time if following EBM will provide best guidance for this unique patient. In an effort to overcome this weakness, and promote higher quality care through a more personalized approach, a new framework has been proposed: Medicine-Based Evidence (MBE). In this approach, big data and deep learning techniques are embraced to interrogate treatment responses among patients in real-world clinical practice. Such statistical models are then integrated with mechanistic disease models to construct a "digital twin," which serves as the real-time digital counterpart of a patient. MBE is thereby capable of dynamically modeling the effects of various treatment decisions in the context of an individual's specific characteristics. In this article, we discuss how MBE could benefit patients with congenital heart disease, a field where RCTs are difficult to conduct and often fail to provide definitive solutions because of a small number of subjects, their clinical complexity, and heterogeneity. We will also highlight the challenges that must be addressed before MBE can be embraced in clinical practice and its full potential can be realized.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eynde et al. (2021) conducted a review in Congenital Heart Disease. Medicine-Based Evidence (Artificial Intelligence) vs. Evidence-Based Medicine was evaluated. Medicine-Based Evidence, utilizing artificial intelligence and digital twins, offers a promising framework to personalize treatment decisions for patients with congenital heart disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: