Cited by 108Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTechnology and Human Factors in Education and HealthDigital Transformation in Industry

Advancing health care with digital twins: meta-review of applications and implementation challenges

Open access
Ringeval, Mickaël, Etindele Sosso, Faustin Armel, Cousineau, Martin, Paré, Guy·2025·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Digital twins (DTs) are digital representations of real-world systems, enabling advanced simulations, predictive modeling, and real-time optimization in various fields, including health care. Despite growing interest, the integration of DTs in health care faces challenges such as fragmented applications, ethical concerns, and barriers to adoption. Objective: This study systematically reviews the existing literature on DT applications in health care with three objectives: (1) to map primary applications, (2) to identify key challenges and limitations, and (3) to highlight gaps that can guide future research. Methods: A meta-review was conducted in a systematic fashion, adhering to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, and included 25 literature reviews published between 2021 and 2024. The search encompassed 5 databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, and PsycINFO. Thematic synthesis was used to categorize DT applications, stakeholders, and barriers to adoption. Results: A total of 3 primary DT applications in health care were identified: personalized medicine, operational efficiency, and medical research. While current applications, such as predictive diagnostics, patient-specific treatment simulations, and hospital resource optimization, remain in their early stages of development, they highlight the significant potential of DTs. Challenges include data quality, ethical issues, and socioeconomic barriers. This review also identified gaps in scalability, interoperability, and clinical validation. Conclusions: DTs hold transformative potential in health care, providing individualized care, operational optimization, and accelerated research. However, their adoption is hindered by technical, ethical, and financial barriers. Addressing these issues requires interdisciplinary collaboration, standardized protocols, and inclusive implementation strategies to ensure equitable access and meaningful impact.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/69544

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The shifts in engagement are likely part of a broader evolution in health care, driven by rapid technological advancements.

    “Rather than attributing the improvement solely to the pandemic, it is likely that these shifts are part of a broader evolution in health care, driven by rapid technological advancements [44].”

    From Evolving Medical Students’ Digital Health Perceptions and Intentions: Insights From a Prepandemic and Postpandemic Survey Study (2025) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Discussion’s Conclusions describe digital twins as a potentially transformative health care technology, supporting the broad point that technological advances may change care. The paper does not establish that the cited shifts in engagement are part of that evolution or compare technological change with the pandemic as an explanation (no page numbers are available in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [11]van den Akker O Peters G-J Bakker C Generalized Systematic Review Registration Form MetaArXiv. Preprint posted online on September 22, 2023
  2. [13]Paré G Kitsiou S Handbook of eHealth evaluation: an evidence-based approach [internet] University of Victoria 2025-02-04 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/ 29431951
  3. [46]Foundational Research Gaps and Future Directions for Digital Twins National Academies 2024 2025-02-04 Washington DC National Academies Press https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26894/chapter/1 39088664

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ringeval, M., Etindele Sosso, F. A., Cousineau, M., & Paré, G.
Affiliations
HEC Montréal (CA)
Corresponding author
Ringeval, Mickaël
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2025-02-19
Volume
27
Pages
e69544
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4406790909
Cited by
108
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 83 · 2025: 25
FWCI
6.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Digital Transformation in Industry
Keywords
digital twin, health care applications, personalized medicine, hospital operational efficiency, predictive diagnostics, hospital resource optimization, implementation barriers, data quality, interoperability, clinical validation, scalability, barriers to adoption
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Precision Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review