A systematic review of cardiac in-silico clinical trials

Just off the press: a systematic review of cardiac in-silico clinical trials.

Reading the paper it's clear how we definitely have some homework to do in digital medicine.

Short recap: In the end 36 papers were included. 

• the first thing to notice: one must differentiate between studies with the population being digital twins, population models, or hybrid. Important difference in population size;
• one of the main red flags seen across literature is the lack of demographics reported. Maybe because we still see in-silico clinical trials through the engineering lens rather than as translational research? But the clinical application claims were sure common and heavy! 
• one of the saddest red flags is that after listening to and reading many discussions on "generating trust in models" to accelerate innovation uptake, most papers to not share validations and uncertainty quantification.

...do notice the stark contrast of this exploration of reality against one of the many position papers/white papers (published nicely at almost the same time) where experts basically trade promises and lobby, leaving the gap in good practices as the elephant in the room.

The full text is available here ...and the authors have made available notebooks for anyone to reproduce the images and check the soundness of the analyses here