The State of the Art of Digital Twins in Health—A Quick Review of the Literature
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present a State of the art of digital twins in health: a quick review of the literature. This article explores uses of digital twins in healthcare. It opens discussions on the impact of use and future research projections. But, in reality it is a quick and superficial review.
The manuscript must significantly improve in the following aspects:
1. The study is very basic and aimed at defending the technology. It is vital to expand the use and its consequences in health, as well as current trends.
2. It is worth clarifying that the PICO strategy is widely used to build the research question and not for reviews. In this study the authors use it to generate two guiding questions: How are digital twins being used in the health sector? and What are the challenges and perspectives of the use of digital twins in the health sector? BUT, the title promises a State of the art of digital twins in health, so these questions fall very short in scope.
3. Based on figure 1, only 13 articles were analyzed. Given this small number, it is very difficult to reach conclusive conclusions.
4. Authors must consider applying the PRISMA methodology, because Figure 1 is very similar to their process.
5. Citations and references must be sequential and ordered by their appearance in the text.
6. Grammar and syntax must be completely revised.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGrammar and syntax must be completely revised.
The authors must use English Scientific
Author Response
|
1. Summary |
|
We sincerely appreciate your thorough review of our manuscript. Please find below our detailed responses to your comments, along with the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. |
Comment 1: “The study is very basic and aimed at defending the technology. It is vital to expand the use and its consequences in health, as well as current trends.”
Response 1: We redid the discussion and conclusion of the article
Comment 2: It is worth clarifying that the PICO strategy is widely used to build the research question and not for reviews. In this study the authors use it to generate two guiding questions: How are digital twins being used in the health sector? and What are the challenges and perspectives of the use of digital twins in the health sector? BUT the title promises a State of the art of digital twins in health, so these questions fall very short in scope.
Response 2: Thanks for the alert. We used the PICO strategy to guide the questions that shaped the bibliographic research. We understand that it was possible, through the literature review research proposal, to address what was raised in the two questions.
Comment 3: Based on figure 1, only 13 articles were analyzed. Given this small number, it is very difficult to reach conclusive conclusions.
Response 3: We recognize this concern and agree that the number of articles selected was restricted, however, as it is a recent topic, with an increase in publications only since 2018, we understand that it was possible, with this stratum, to present the main aspects of application of digital twins in health, which corroborates the results of other reviews carried out on the topic.
Comment 4: Authors must consider applying the PRISMA methodology, because Figure 1 is very similar to their process.
Response 4: We appreciate the suggestion and use it as a methodology for the literature review.
Comment 5: Citations and references must be sequential and ordered by their appearance in the text.
Response 5: We made the changes as suggested by the reviewer, as stated in the bibliographic references.
Comment 6: Grammar and syntax must be completely revised.
Response 6: We made the changes as suggested by the reviewer
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper explores the application of digital twin technology in the field of health. They are used for managing medical facilities, optimizing nursing processes, personalized treatment, and enhancing patient recovery. The author discussed key issues such as data integration, privacy and security, and interoperability, demonstrating a profound understanding of the field. Finally, the paper discusses the potential and challenges of digital twin technology, and provides insights into future research directions.
However, there are still several aspects of the article that need improvement:
Introduction ： Lack of preliminary evaluation of existing literature requires clarification on the necessity and urgency of the research.
Literature Review: The introduction of concepts takes up too much space in the article, it is recommended to streamline the introduction
Methodology： The use of PICO strategy and extensive database searches ensured the comprehensiveness and relevance of the research. The methodology section provides a detailed explanation of the design and execution of the study, increasing the transparency of the research. However, it is necessary to provide a detailed explanation on how to select the final articles to be included in the analysis.
Results: The results are well-organized and clearly demonstrate the different applications of digital twins in healthcare. Presented in tabular form, easy to understand and compare. However, the results section lacks in-depth analysis of the data, such as providing specific case studies to support the conclusions.
Discussion: Lack of discussion on other factors that may affect the application of digital twin technology, such as economic, policy, and cultural factors.
Author Response
|
1. Summary |
|
We sincerely appreciate your thorough review of our manuscript. Please find below our detailed responses to your comments, along with the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. |
Comment 1: “Introduction ： Lack of preliminary evaluation of existing literature requires clarification on the necessity and urgency of the research.”
Response 1: As it is still a very recent topic in the literature, there is a lack of work that can demonstrate the effective use of technology in healthcare. The article aims to carry out a quick review of the literature on the topic.
Comment 2: “The introduction of concepts takes up too much space in the article, it is recommended to streamline the introduction.”
Response 2: We appreciate the suggestion, but we understand that there is still space needed to explain the main concepts and the relationship between them. One of the consequences can be demonstrated in the results of the bibliographic search when the main concepts are combined. We obtained few results even using 5 scientific bases.
Comment 3: “Methodology： The use of PICO strategy and extensive database searches ensured the comprehensiveness and relevance of the research. The methodology section provides a detailed explanation of the design and execution of the study, increasing the transparency of the research. However, it is necessary to provide a detailed explanation on how to select the final articles to be included in the analysis.”
Response 3: We recognize this concern and appreciate the suggestion. We used the PRISMA method to improve the detail of the final selection of articles.
Comment 4: “Results: The results are well-organized and clearly demonstrate the different applications of digital twins in healthcare. Presented in tabular form, easy to understand and compare. However, the results section lacks in-depth analysis of the data, such as providing specific case studies to support the conclusions.”
Response 4: We appreciate the suggestion, and we redid the discussion and conclusion of the article, citing concrete cases from studies selected in the bibliography research.
Comment 5: “Discussion: Lack of discussion on other factors that may affect the application of digital twin technology, such as economic, policy, and cultural factors.”
Response 5: We appreciate the suggestion, and we redid the discussion and conclusion of the article, trying to address aspects of these dimensions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper reviews the scientific literature on the use of digital twins in healthcare. I find it worth reading for a wide category of people interested in this subject. The paper structure is adequate, the concepts are clearly defined, the methodology is straightforward, and the Discussion section provides a balanced coverage of both guiding questions.
As the whole paper is about literature review I would suggest the authors change the title of the second section, which is about the main concepts this review operates with.
The list of selected papers is limited but relevant for a quick review. They were identified from a large search list according to the adopted methodology.
I would draw the authors' attention to the following minor remarks about the list of references:
- it seems that [9] and [20] are not cited neither in Table 3 nor in the text;
- Safa and Asan (2023) from Table 3 is not included in the list of references;
- [31] is cited in Table 3 with a wrong year;
- [4] and [28] are not inserted in the list according to the surname of their first author, making their identification difficult from Table 3.
Author Response
|
1. Summary |
|
We sincerely appreciate your thorough review of our manuscript. Please find below our detailed responses to your comments, along with the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. |
Comment 1: “The paper reviews the scientific literature on the use of digital twins in healthcare. I find it worth reading for a wide category of people interested in this subject. The paper structure is adequate, the concepts are clearly defined, the methodology is straightforward, and the Discussion section provides a balanced coverage of both guiding questions. As the whole paper is about literature review, I would suggest the authors change the title of the second section, which is about the main concepts this review operates with.
The list of selected papers is limited but relevant for a quick review. They were identified from a large search list according to the adopted methodology.
I would draw the authors' attention to the following minor remarks about the list of references:
- it seems that [9] and [20] are not cited neither in Table 3 nor in the text;
- Safa and Asan (2023) from Table 3 is not included in the list of references;
- [31] is cited in Table 3 with a wrong year;
- [4] and [28] are not inserted in the list according to the surname of their first author, making their identification difficult from Table 3. “
Response 1: We made all the changes as suggested by the reviewer, as stated in the bibliographic references and in the figures.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article is devoted to the study of publications and articles on the topic of creating digital twins in medicine. Deep research in this topic will significantly improve the quality of global healthcare.
However, I have concern about the quality of the prepared article.
Firstly, the authors prepared a review of the literature. Although the article is classified as a "research article".
Secondly, the authors need to improve their review article by analyzing more literature sources.
No numerical metrics are provided for assessing the current state of the problem under consideration.
The conclusions made in the article do not clearly indicate the scope of application of the results of the analysis.
I wish good luck to the authors in the process of improving the article!
Author Response
|
1. Summary |
|
We sincerely appreciate your thorough review of our manuscript. Please find below our detailed responses to your comments, along with the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. |
Comment 1: “This article is devoted to the study of publications and articles on the topic of creating digital twins in medicine. Deep research in this topic will significantly improve the quality of global healthcare. However, I have concern about the quality of the prepared article.
Firstly, the authors prepared a review of the literature. Although the article is classified as a "research article".
Response 1: The article aims to carry out a quick review of the literature on the topic. We don´t see any problem to reclassify as a review.
Comment 2: “Secondly, the authors need to improve their review article by analyzing more literature sources. No numerical metrics are provided for assessing the current state of the problem under consideration.”
Response 2: We recognize this concern and agree that the number of articles selected was restricted, however, as it is a recent topic, with an increase in publications only since 2018, we understand that it was possible, with this stratum, to present the main aspects of application of digital twins in healthcare. We obtained the results by using 5 scientific bases.
Comment 3: “The conclusions made in the article do not clearly indicate the scope of application of the results of the analysis.”
Response 3: We appreciate the suggestion, and we redid the discussion and conclusion of the article, citing concrete cases from studies selected in the bibliography research.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have reviewed and corrected all comments in the manuscript. Approved in the current state.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article not only elaborates on the definition, key components, and integration with modern technologies such as the Internet of Things and AI of digital twin technology, but also demonstrates its potential applications in personalized healthcare, medical process optimization, and improving healthcare service efficiency. At the same time, it honestly points out the challenges in technology implementation, such as data integration, privacy protection, and interoperability issues, and provides forward-looking insights into future development directions. In addition, the article also considers the profound ethical and social impacts of digital twin technology, presenting readers with a comprehensive study that includes both technical details and practicality and social responsibility.
