Cardiovascular Digital Twins from Physics Based to Data Driven Approaches

Emmanuel Lwele; Francis Chikweto

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Cardiovascular Digital Twins from Physics Based to Data Driven Approaches

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A review of cardiovascular digital twin modeling paradigms that concludes hybrid physics-informed and graph-based methods are the most promising direction for clinical deployment.

desk verdict A competent, clearly structured review of cardiovascular digital twin modelling paradigms, with a real formal error in the PINN Navier-Stokes residual and a disclosed but non-reproducible literature selection; worth refereeing with revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02135 v1 pith:F6UQDCXV submitted 2026-08-03 physics.med-ph cs.LG

Emmanuel Lwele , Francis Chikweto This is my paper

classification physics.med-phcs.LG

keywords cardiovasculardatadigitaltwinsapproachesmodelsacrossassimilation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Cardiovascular digital twins are patient-specific computer models of the heart and blood vessels that are supposed to update as new data about the patient arrives. This paper is a literature review of how such models are made. It walks through several approaches: 0D lumped-parameter models, which treat the circulation as electrical circuits; 1D models that track pressure and flow along vessels; 3D simulations that solve fluid dynamics in detailed anatomy; machine learning models that learn from data; physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) that build physical equations into neural nets; and graph neural networks that treat the vascular tree as a network of connected nodes.

The review's central message is that no single approach wins on all fronts. Purely physics-based models are interpretable but slow and hard to personalize. Purely data-driven models are fast and scalable but can make predictions that violate physiology and are hard to trust outside the training data. The authors recommend hybrid frameworks that use physics-based models as a backbone and machine learning to handle local details or speed up computation. They also stress that validation and uncertainty quantification are still weak points, and that prospective clinical validation is rare.

Because this is a review, it does not contain new experiments or derivations. Its value is organizational: it gives a structured map of the field and highlights where future work should focus, particularly on hybrid modeling and rigorous validation.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central assertion, stated in the Conclusions: 'Hybrid and multi-paradigm architectures constitute a unifying framework that combines physical consistency with computational efficiency and adaptive learning capabilities.' If this is correct, future cardiovascular digital twin research should focus on integrating mechanistic models with machine learning components.

Load-bearing premise

The review's synthesis assumes that the studies it selected are representative of the field. The authors state in Section 1.3 that 'No formal PRISMA screening protocol was applied' and that studies were 'selected to achieve balanced coverage', which means the conclusions, including the recommendation for hybrid approaches, depend on a subjective selection of literature. If this selection is biased, the review's map of the field could be distorted.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a review, not a research contribution, so don't look for a new result. What it does well: it gives a genuinely useful map of the field—mechanistic, data-driven, PINN, GNN, and hybrid—with careful attention to validation and uncertainty quantification, and it is honest about limitations. The section on retrospective vs. prospective validation is particularly sound, and the discussion of practical vs. structural identifiability is better than most reviews at this level.

Two things bother me. First, Eq. (1) states the PINN residual as ρ(u·∇)u + ∇p − μ∇²u, omitting the temporal term ∂u/∂t. That is formally wrong for unsteady flows, which the paper explicitly claims to target. It is the kind of error that looks like a typo, but it sits in the central equation describing the paper's key hybrid paradigm, so it needs fixing before this can be trusted as a reference. Second, the stress-test concern is on target: Section 1.3 discloses that no PRISMA protocol was applied and that studies were selected to achieve 'balanced coverage.' That makes the synthesis non-reproducible. It does not invalidate the conclusions—the hybrid recommendation is broadly consistent with the surrounding literature—but it does mean the review is an informed opinion with a good bibliography, not an evidence map. The reader's UNVERDICTED verdict seems right.

No circularity, no invented entities, no hidden parameter fitting. The citation pattern is normal for a review; the authors are not leaning on their own work. The writing is clear and the thinking is serious, even with the equation lapse.

Who is this for? A graduate student or clinician-engineer wanting a single readable overview of the landscape, or a researcher looking for a quick orientation before diving into specific methods. It deserves a serious referee because a good review is useful and this one is mostly good. I would send it out, but flag the equation and ask for a more transparent literature selection—either a PRISMA-style flow diagram or an explicit inclusion rubric. With those changes it would be a solid contribution. I would probably cite it in a background section, though I would not hinge a methods choice on it.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a narrative review of computational modelling paradigms for cardiovascular digital twins, spanning mechanistic biophysical models (0D/1D/3D and electromechanical), data-driven machine learning, physics-informed neural networks (PINNs), graph neural networks (GNNs), and hybrid/multi-paradigm frameworks. It discusses definitions and architecture of digital twins, clinical data sources, personalisation and uncertainty quantification, verification and validation, clinical applications, and ethical/regulatory considerations. The central claim, stated in the Conclusions, is that hybrid and multi-paradigm architectures constitute a unifying framework combining physical consistency, computational efficiency, and adaptive learning. The review is structured as a targeted but explicitly non-systematic literature synthesis.

Significance. If its central claim is accepted, the paper provides a useful methodological map for an interdisciplinary audience. Its strengths include a clear taxonomy of paradigms, a comparative summary in Table 1, an honest discussion of PINN training pathologies and GNN conservation-law limitations, and an explicit treatment of validation standards (including ASME V&V 40) and the distinction between retrospective personalisation and prospective validation. The paper is also commendable for disclosing its methodological limitations rather than presenting the synthesis as a systematic review. However, because the evidence base is a self-selected narrative sample and the quantitative formalism contains a technical error, the field-level conclusion about hybrid architectures should be treated as a plausible research direction rather than an established finding.

major comments (3)

[§5.1, Eq. (1)] The Navier-Stokes residual is stated as L_F = (1/N_c) Σ [ || ρ(u·∇)u + ∇p − μ∇²u ||² + ||∇·u||² ], but this omits the temporal term ρ ∂u/∂t. For the unsteady, pulsatile flows that characterise cardiovascular haemodynamics, the residual as written is not the incompressible Navier-Stokes residual and would incorrectly admit steady-flow solutions. This is load-bearing because the section uses Eq. (1) to define the 'physics' that PINNs enforce. The equation should include ρ ∂u/∂t inside the momentum residual. The surrounding prose also refers to 'governing physical laws' and 'conservation of mass and momentum', so the correction is necessary for formal accuracy.
[§1.3, Conclusions] The central claim that hybrid and multi-paradigm architectures 'constitute a unifying framework' is a generalization about the state of the field, but it rests on a non-systematic literature selection. The authors state that no PRISMA protocol was applied and that studies were 'selected to achieve balanced coverage'; no inclusion/exclusion criteria or list of screened studies is provided. A narrative review can be valuable without PRISMA, but the strength of the conclusion should match the evidence. As written, the synthesis is vulnerable to selection bias, particularly if positive hybrid/PINN/GNN demonstrations are over-represented relative to negative results or head-to-head comparisons. I recommend either softening the conclusion to a research priority or hypothesis, or adding a transparent evidence table that documents how representative studies were chosen.
[Table 1] The comparative ratings for 'UQ Maturity' and 'Clinical Readiness' are presented as summary findings, but no rubric, scoring rule, or per-cell citation is given. The caption says ratings are 'qualitative and based on representative published studies', yet the reader cannot verify which studies support each rating or how categories such as 'Moderate' vs 'Moderate–High' were distinguished. Because Table 1 is one of the main comparative outputs of the review and is used to orient the paradigm-by-paradigm discussion, the ratings should either be accompanied by a documented rubric or explicitly labelled as author judgment rather than literature-derived evidence.

minor comments (4)

[§5.1, Eq. (1)] The typesetting of the residual norm is broken: the norm bars appear as 'h ... i' rather than as \(\|\cdot\|\). This should be fixed for readability.
[§1.3] Given the structured-narrative design, a short appendix listing the included studies and search dates would improve reproducibility, even without a full PRISMA flow diagram.
[§3.3 and §8] The aleatory/epistemic uncertainty distinction and the discussion of identifiability appear twice, in nearly identical wording. Consolidating these passages would reduce redundancy.
[Figure 1] The caption credits 'WHO and partners' but no specific report or data source is cited in the reference list. A formal citation would help readers verify the mortality figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: narrative review synthesizes external literature; no fitted parameter is relabeled as prediction and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. The paper makes no derivation in the sense of deriving one quantitative result from another: it is a narrative review that surveys mechanistic, data-driven, PINN, GNN, and hybrid paradigms and concludes that hybrid architectures are a unifying framework. That conclusion is a qualitative synthesis of external, non-overlapping references, not a quantity computed from Eq. (1) or Eq. (3). Eq. (1) is a standard PINN Navier-Stokes residual used for illustration; it is not used to predict the paper's own conclusions, and Eq. (3) is the standard message-passing update, which is descriptive. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then reported as a prediction. No 'uniqueness theorem' is invoked to force a modeling choice. I found no self-citations by Lwele or Chikweto in the reference list, so the self-citation patterns do not apply. The closest thing to a limitation is Section 1.3's admission that 'No formal PRISMA screening protocol was applied' and that studies were 'selected to achieve balanced coverage.' That is a representativeness/selection-bias caveat about the evidence base; it does not make the conclusion equal to its input by definition. The qualitative Table 1 ratings are explicitly 'based on representative published studies,' and although the selection rule is not formalized, that affects evidentiary weight, not circularity. The alleged omission of the time-derivative term in Eq. (1) is a technical correctness concern, not a circularity. Under the hard rule requiring a quoted reduction from output to input, no such reduction exists, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review rests on definitional and disciplinary assumptions, not on fitted parameters or new entities. The main assumptions are the validity of Navier-Stokes for hemodynamics, the bidirectional-coupling definition of a digital twin, and the authority of ASME V&V 40.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Navier-Stokes equations are a valid descriptor of cardiovascular hemodynamics
Used throughout Section 5.1 as the basis for PINN losses; not derived within the review.
domain assumption A digital twin requires bidirectional coupling (patient-to-model and model-to-patient)
Defined in Section 2.1 and used to classify models; this is a definition, not proven.
domain assumption The ASME V&V 40 standard applies as a credibility framework for medical device computational models
Invoked in Sections 3.3 and 10; accepted as authoritative.
ad hoc to paper The selected paradigms (0D, 1D, 3D, ML, PINN, GNN, hybrid) exhaust the relevant space of cardiovascular digital twin modelling approaches
Table 1 and the review structure assume these categories are comprehensive; the selection of categories is a choice by the authors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cardiovascular Digital Twins from Physics Based to Data Driven Approaches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F6UQDCXV

@misc{pith2026260802135,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cardiovascular Digital Twins from Physics Based to Data Driven Approaches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F6UQDCXV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02135}
}

read the original abstract

Cardiovascular digital twins aim to create patient-specific computational models that evolve with clinical data to support diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy optimisation. Mechanistic models provide physiological interpretability but remain computationally demanding, whereas data-driven approaches improve scalability yet risk limited robustness. Emerging physics-informed, graph-based, and hybrid methods integrate physical constraints with relational learning across vascular networks. We review modelling paradigms, data assimilation frameworks, validation challenges, and translational pathways toward clinically deployable cardiovascular digital twins.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[1]

Paris Lodron University of Salzburg and Aalborg University in Copenhagen (2020)

Jeske, S.J.: Digital twins in healthcare. Paris Lodron University of Salzburg and Aalborg University in Copenhagen (2020)

2020
[2]

Journal of the American Heart Association13(19), 031981 (2024)

Sel, K., Osman, D., Zare, F., Masoumi Shahrbabak, S., Brattain, L., Hahn, J.- O., Inan, O.T., Mukkamala, R., Palmer, J., Paydarfar, D.,et al.: Building digital 31 twins for cardiovascular health: From principles to clinical impact. Journal of the American Heart Association13(19), 031981 (2024)

2024
[3]

PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania (2023)

Kissas, G.: Towards digital twins for cardiovascular flows: A hybrid machine learning and computational fluid dynamics approach. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania (2023)

2023
[4]

Digital Medicine10(4), 00013 (2024)

Huang, L., Pan, L., Wu, C., Tian, M., Li, Q., Peng, Y., Li, Q., Li, Y.: Appli- cation and development prospect of digital twin in the forensic identification of cardiovascular diseases. Digital Medicine10(4), 00013 (2024)

2024
[5]

Bioengineering12(10), 1102 (2025)

Canino, G., Di Costanzo, A., Salerno, N., Leo, I., Cannataro, M., Guzzi, P.H., Veltri, P., Sorrentino, S., De Rosa, S., Torella, D.: Artificial intelligence in car- diac electrophysiology: a clinically oriented review with engineering primers. Bioengineering12(10), 1102 (2025)

2025
[6]

Journal of personalized medicine13(10), 1522 (2023)

Meijer, C., Uh, H.-W., El Bouhaddani, S.: Digital twins in healthcare: Method- ological challenges and opportunities. Journal of personalized medicine13(10), 1522 (2023)

2023
[7]

NPJ digital medicine5(1), 126 (2022)

Coorey, G., Figtree, G.A., Fletcher, D.F., Snelson, V.J., Vernon, S.T., Winlaw, D., Grieve, S.M., McEwan, A., Yang, J.Y.H., Qian, P.,et al.: The health digital twin to tackle cardiovascular disease—a review of an emerging interdisciplinary field. NPJ digital medicine5(1), 126 (2022)

2022
[8]

Cardiovascular Diabetology24(1), 293 (2025)

Strocchi, M., Hammersley, D.J., Halliday, B.P., Prasad, S.K., Niederer, S.A.: Car- diac digital twins: a tool to investigate the function and treatment of the diabetic heart. Cardiovascular Diabetology24(1), 293 (2025)

2025

Show all 80 references

[9]

Physiological measurement (2025)

Zhao, A., Fattahi, D., Hu, X.: Physics-informed neural networks for physiological signals processing and modeling: a narrative review. Physiological measurement (2025)

2025
[10]

Patterns5(8) (2024)

Zhang, K., Zhou, H.-Y., Baptista-Hon, D.T., Gao, Y., Liu, X., Oermann, E., Xu, S., Jin, S., Zhang, J., Sun, Z., et al.: Concepts and applications of digital twins in healthcare and medicine. Patterns5(8) (2024)

2024
[11]

Annals of Biomedical Engineering50(6), 615–627 (2022)

Arzani, A., Wang, J.-X., Sacks, M.S., Shadden, S.C.: Machine learning for car- diovascular biomechanics modeling: challenges and beyond. Annals of Biomedical Engineering50(6), 615–627 (2022)

2022
[12]

Scientific reports 13(1), 8230 (2023)

Viola, F., Del Corso, G., De Paulis, R., Verzicco, R.: Gpu accelerated digital twins of the human heart open new routes for cardiovascular research. Scientific reports 13(1), 8230 (2023)

2023
[13]

IEEE Reviews in Biomedical 32 Engineering (2024)

Li, L., Camps, J., Rodriguez, B., Grau, V.: Solving the inverse problem of elec- trocardiography for cardiac digital twins: A survey. IEEE Reviews in Biomedical 32 Engineering (2024)

2024
[14]

Proceedings of the IEEE94(4), 769–783 (2006)

Kerckhoffs, R.C., Healy, S.N., Usyk, T.P., McCULLOCH, A.D.: Computational methods for cardiac electromechanics. Proceedings of the IEEE94(4), 769–783 (2006)

2006
[15]

Eng6(8), 168 (2025)

Xu, J., Wang, F.: Cardiac mechano-electrical-fluid interaction: a brief review of recent advances. Eng6(8), 168 (2025)

2025
[16]

Computational Mechanics, 1–22 (2025)

Tes´ an, L., Gonz´ alez, D., Martins, P., Cueto, E.: Thermodynamics-informed graph neural networks for real-time simulation of digital human twins. Computational Mechanics, 1–22 (2025)

2025
[17]

Bewig, N.: Cardiovascular Digital Twins from Time-Resolved CT (2025)

2025
[18]

IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering67(10), 2754–2764 (2020)

Zhang, X., Wu, D., Miao, F., Liu, H., Li, Y.: Personalized hemodynamic modeling of the human cardiovascular system: a reduced-order computing model. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering67(10), 2754–2764 (2020)

2020
[19]

Journal of cardiovascular translational research11(2), 80–88 (2018)

Gray, R.A., Pathmanathan, P.: Patient-specific cardiovascular computational modeling: diversity of personalization and challenges. Journal of cardiovascular translational research11(2), 80–88 (2018)

2018
[20]

Electronics13(5), 866 (2024)

Rudnicka, Z., Proniewska, K., Perkins, M., Pregowska, A.: Cardiac healthcare digital twins supported by artificial intelligence-based algorithms and extended reality—a systematic review. Electronics13(5), 866 (2024)

2024
[21]

Global Cardiology Science and Practice2015(1), 10 (2015)

Mou, Y.A., Bollensdorff, C., Cazorla, O., Magdi, Y., De Tombe, P.P.: Exploring cardiac biophysical properties. Global Cardiology Science and Practice2015(1), 10 (2015)

2015
[22]

International Journal of Mathematical, Computational, Physical, Electrical and Computer Engineering 11(2), 72–84 (2017)

Naik, K., Bhathawala, P.: Mathematical modeling of human cardiovascular sys- tem: A lumped parameter approach and simulation. International Journal of Mathematical, Computational, Physical, Electrical and Computer Engineering 11(2), 72–84 (2017)

2017
[23]

PhD thesis, University of Sheffield (2013)

Shi, Y.: Lumped-parameter modelling of cardiovascular system dynamics under different healthy and diseased conditions. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield (2013)

2013
[24]

Annals of biomedical engineering43(6), 1443–1460 (2015)

Mynard, J.P., Smolich, J.J.: One-dimensional haemodynamic modeling and wave dynamics in the entire adult circulation. Annals of biomedical engineering43(6), 1443–1460 (2015)

2015
[25]

The Journal of physiology594(23), 6833–6847 (2016) 33

Mirams, G.R., Pathmanathan, P., Gray, R.A., Challenor, P., Clayton, R.H.: Uncertainty and variability in computational and mathematical models of cardiac physiology. The Journal of physiology594(23), 6833–6847 (2016) 33

2016
[26]

Circulation research108(1), 113–128 (2011)

Trayanova, N.A.: Whole-heart modeling: applications to cardiac electrophysiology and electromechanics. Circulation research108(1), 113–128 (2011)

2011
[27]

Biomedical engineering online10(1), 33 (2011)

Shi, Y., Lawford, P., Hose, R.: Review of zero-d and 1-d models of blood flow in the cardiovascular system. Biomedical engineering online10(1), 33 (2011)

2011
[28]

Computers in biology and medicine 42(10), 993–1004 (2012)

Larrabide, I., Blanco, P.J., Urquiza, S.A., Dari, E.A., V´ enere, M.J., Silva, N.d.S., Feij´ oo, R.A.: Hemolab–hemodynamics modelling laboratory: An application for modelling the human cardiovascular system. Computers in biology and medicine 42(10), 993–1004 (2012)

2012
[29]

Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering21(4), 5838–5862 (2024)

Cai, L., Zhong, Q., Xu, J., Huang, Y., Gao, H.: A lumped parameter model for evaluating coronary artery blood supply capacity. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering21(4), 5838–5862 (2024)

2024
[30]

IEEE transactions on medical imaging20(1), 2–5 (2002)

Frangi, A.F., Niessen, W.J., Viergever, M.A.: Three-dimensional modeling for functional analysis of cardiac images, a review. IEEE transactions on medical imaging20(1), 2–5 (2002)

2002
[31]

American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology327(2), 473–503 (2024)

Colebank, M.J., Oomen, P.A., Witzenburg, C.M., Grosberg, A., Beard, D.A., Husmeier, D., Olufsen, M.S., Chesler, N.C.: Guidelines for mechanistic modeling and analysis in cardiovascular research. American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology327(2), 473–503 (2024)

2024
[32]

Interface focus1(3), 349–364 (2011)

Smith, N., Vecchi, A., McCormick, M., Nordsletten, D., Camara, O., Frangi, A.F., Delingette, H., Sermesant, M., Relan, J., Ayache, N.,et al.: euheart: personal- ized and integrated cardiac care using patient-specific cardiovascular modelling. Interface focus1(3), 349–364 (2011)

2011
[33]

Computer-Aided Design175, 103747 (2024)

Chen, R., Cui, J., Li, S., Hao, A.: A coupling physics model for real-time 4d simulation of cardiac electromechanics. Computer-Aided Design175, 103747 (2024)

2024
[34]

Annual review of biomedical engineering16(1), 53–76 (2014)

Sun, W., Martin, C., Pham, T.: Computational modeling of cardiac valve function and intervention. Annual review of biomedical engineering16(1), 53–76 (2014)

2014
[35]

International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering39(3), 3678 (2023)

Bucelli, M., Zingaro, A., Africa, P.C., Fumagalli, I., Dede’, L., Quarteroni, A.: A mathematical model that integrates cardiac electrophysiology, mechanics, and fluid dynamics: Application to the human left heart. International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engin...

2023
[36]

PhD thesis, Freie Universit¨ at Berlin, Berlin, Germany (2016)

Gul, R.: Mathematical modeling and sensitivity analysis of lumped-parameter model of the human cardiovascular system. PhD thesis, Freie Universit¨ at Berlin, Berlin, Germany (2016). https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/9472

2016
[37]

Frontiers in Physiology10, 853 34 (2019)

Duanmu, Z., Chen, W., Gao, H., Yang, X., Luo, X., Hill, N.A.: A one-dimensional hemodynamic model of the coronary arterial tree. Frontiers in Physiology10, 853 34 (2019)

2019
[38]

Frontiers in physics11, 1306210 (2023)

Rodero, C., Baptiste, T.M., Barrows, R.K., Lewalle, A., Niederer, S.A., Strocchi, M.: Advancing clinical translation of cardiac biomechanics models: a comprehen- sive review, applications and future pathways. Frontiers in physics11, 1306210 (2023)

2023
[39]

Archives of computational methods in engineering29(5), 2977–3000 (2022)

Garber, L., Khodaei, S., Keshavarz-Motamed, Z.: The critical role of lumped parameter models in patient-specific cardiovascular simulations. Archives of computational methods in engineering29(5), 2977–3000 (2022)

2022
[40]

Biophysica5(1), 5 (2025)

Alonso, S., Alvarez-Lacalle, E., Bragard, J., Echebarria, B.: Biophysical modeling of cardiac cells: From ion channels to tissue. Biophysica5(1), 5 (2025)

2025
[41]

Cardiovascular Imaging14(1), 41–60 (2021)

Wang, D.D., Qian, Z., Vukicevic, M., Engelhardt, S., Kheradvar, A., Zhang, C., Little, S.H., Verjans, J., Comaniciu, D., O’Neill, W.W.,et al.: 3d printing, computational modeling, and artificial intelligence for structural heart disease. Cardiovascular Imaging14(1), 41–60 (2021)

2021
[42]

BMC medical informatics and decision making19(1), 1–15 (2019)

Dinh, A., Miertschin, S., Young, A., Mohanty, S.D.: A data-driven approach to predicting diabetes and cardiovascular disease with machine learning. BMC medical informatics and decision making19(1), 1–15 (2019)

2019
[43]

Heart (2025)

Osta, N., Loon, T., Lumens, J.: Individual hearts: computational models for improved management of cardiovascular disease. Heart (2025)

2025
[44]

Circulation: Cardiovas- cular Imaging10(10), 005614 (2017)

Henglin, M., Stein, G., Hushcha, P.V., Snoek, J., Wiltschko, A.B., Cheng, S.: Machine learning approaches in cardiovascular imaging. Circulation: Cardiovas- cular Imaging10(10), 005614 (2017)

2017
[45]

Journal of the Royal Society Interface18(175), 20200802 (2021)

Arzani, A., Dawson, S.T.: Data-driven cardiovascular flow modelling: examples and opportunities. Journal of the Royal Society Interface18(175), 20200802 (2021)

2021
[46]

International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering37(7), 3471 (2021)

Regazzoni, F., Chapelle, D., Moireau, P.: Combining data assimilation and machine learning to build data-driven models for unknown long time dynam- ics—applications in cardiovascular modeling. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering37(7), 3471 (2021)

2021
[47]

Frontiers Media SA (2023)

Bauer, R., Cicero, A.F.G., Manca, M.: Data driven and model based computa- tional futures in cardiovascular practice. Frontiers Media SA (2023)

2023
[48]

Journal of biomedical informatics121, 103876 (2021)

Gandin, I., Scagnetto, A., Romani, S., Barbati, G.: Interpretability of time-series deep learning models: A study in cardiovascular patients admitted to intensive care unit. Journal of biomedical informatics121, 103876 (2021)

2021
[49]

Sensors23(3), 1161 (2023)

Dritsas, E., Trigka, M.: Efficient data-driven machine learning models for 35 cardiovascular diseases risk prediction. Sensors23(3), 1161 (2023)

2023
[50]

Electronics14(14), 2906 (2025)

Kissi, S.A., Talukder, M.G.M., Iqbal, M.Z.: Data-driven predictive modelling of lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular health. Electronics14(14), 2906 (2025)

2025
[51]

Journal of the Royal Society Interface22(224), 20240774 (2025)

Barzegar Gerdroodbary, M., Salavatidezfouli, S.: A predictive surrogate model of blood haemodynamics for patient-specific carotid artery stenosis. Journal of the Royal Society Interface22(224), 20240774 (2025)

2025
[52]

ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems14(1), 1–29 (2023)

Morid, M.A., Sheng, O.R.L., Dunbar, J.: Time series prediction using deep learning methods in healthcare. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems14(1), 1–29 (2023)

2023
[53]

Shameer, K., Johnson, K.W., Glicksberg, B.S., Dudley, J.T., Sengupta, P.P.: Machine learning in cardiovascular medicine: are we there yet? Heart104(14), 1156–1164 (2018)

2018
[54]

Computers in biology and medicine166, 107513 (2023)

Prabhu, S., Rangarajan, S., Kothare, M.: Data-driven discovery of sparse dynam- ical model of cardiovascular system for model predictive control. Computers in biology and medicine166, 107513 (2023)

2023
[55]

Computers in Biology and Medicine189, 109959 (2025)

Gerdroodbary, M.B., Salavatidezfouli, S.: A predictive surrogate model based on linear and nonlinear solution manifold reduction in cardiovascular fsi: A comparative study. Computers in Biology and Medicine189, 109959 (2025)

2025
[56]

Biomolecules10(11), 1526 (2020)

Dozen, A., Komatsu, M., Sakai, A., Komatsu, R., Shozu, K., Machino, H., Yasu- tomi, S., Arakaki, T., Asada, K., Kaneko, S.,et al.: Image segmentation of the ventricular septum in fetal cardiac ultrasound videos based on deep learning using time-series information. Biomolecules...

2020
[57]

Journal of Computational physics378, 686–707 (2019)

Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., Karniadakis, G.E.: Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational physics378, 686–707 (2019)

2019
[58]

Nature Reviews Physics3(6), 422–440 (2021)

Karniadakis, G.E., Kevrekidis, I.G., Lu, L., Perdikaris, P., Wang, S., Yang, L.: Physics-informed machine learning. Nature Reviews Physics3(6), 422–440 (2021)

2021
[59]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08468 (2023)

Wang, S., Sankaran, S., Wang, H., Perdikaris, P.: An expert’s guide to training physics-informed neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08468 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[60]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.08064 (2022)

Hao, Z., Liu, S., Zhang, Y., Ying, C., Feng, Y., Su, H., Zhu, J.: Physics- informed machine learning: A survey on problems, methods and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.08064 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[61]

Physics of Fluids33(7) 36 (2021)

Arzani, A., Wang, J.-X., D’Souza, R.M.: Uncovering near-wall blood flow from sparse data with physics-informed neural networks. Physics of Fluids33(7) 36 (2021)

2021
[62]

AI5(3), 1534–1557 (2024)

Farea, A., Yli-Harja, O., Emmert-Streib, F.: Understanding physics-informed neu- ral networks: Techniques, applications, trends, and challenges. AI5(3), 1534–1557 (2024)

2024
[63]

IEEE Transactions on Power Systems38(1), 572–588 (2022)

Huang, B., Wang, J.: Applications of physics-informed neural networks in power systems-a review. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems38(1), 572–588 (2022)

2022
[64]

Energies16(5), 2343 (2023)

Sharma, P., Chung, W.T., Akoush, B., Ihme, M.: A review of physics-informed machine learning in fluid mechanics. Energies16(5), 2343 (2023)

2023
[65]

Proceedings of the Royal Society A480(2283), 20230655 (2024)

Conti, P., Guo, M., Manzoni, A., Frangi, A., Brunton, S.L., Nathan Kutz, J.: Multi-fidelity reduced-order surrogate modelling. Proceedings of the Royal Society A480(2283), 20230655 (2024)

2024
[66]

Fluids7(6), 197 (2022)

Taebi, A.: Deep learning for computational hemodynamics: A brief review of recent advances. Fluids7(6), 197 (2022)

2022
[67]

Olakorede, I.: Physics-based artificial intelligence for atrial electrophysiological model (2022)

2022
[68]

IEEE transactions on medical imaging41(9), 2285–2303 (2022)

Sarabian, M., Babaee, H., Laksari, K.: Physics-informed neural networks for brain hemodynamic predictions using medical imaging. IEEE transactions on medical imaging41(9), 2285–2303 (2022)

2022
[69]

PET clinics21(1), 153–167 (2026)

Panneerselvam, N.K., Mummaneni, G., Roncali, E.: Toward digital twins for optimal radioembolization. PET clinics21(1), 153–167 (2026)

2026
[70]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.08418 (2025)

Lydon, H., Kazemi, M., Bishop, M., Paoletti, N.: Physics-informed neural operators for cardiac electrophysiology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.08418 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[71]

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine8, 768419 (2022)

Herrero Martin, C., Oved, A., Chowdhury, R.A., Ullmann, E., Peters, N.S., Bharath, A.A., Varela, M.: Ep-pinns: Cardiac electrophysiology characterisation using physics-informed neural networks. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine8, 768419 (2022)

2022
[72]

Machine Learning for Computational Science and Engineering1(1), 20 (2025)

Meng, C., Griesemer, S., Cao, D., Seo, S., Liu, Y.: When physics meets machine learning: A survey of physics-informed machine learning. Machine Learning for Computational Science and Engineering1(1), 20 (2025)

2025
[73]

Frontiers in genetics12, 652907 (2021)

Barbiero, P., Vinas Torne, R., Li´ o, P.: Graph representation forecasting of patient’s medical conditions: toward a digital twin. Frontiers in genetics12, 652907 (2021)

2021
[74]

IEEE Access12, 15145–15170 (2024) 37

Paul, S.G., Saha, A., Hasan, M.Z., Noori, S.R.H., Moustafa, A.: A systematic review of graph neural network in healthcare-based applications: Recent advances, trends, and future directions. IEEE Access12, 15145–15170 (2024) 37

2024
[75]

Data-Centric Engineering3, 24 (2022)

Shukla, K., Xu, M., Trask, N., Karniadakis, G.E.: Scalable algorithms for physics- informed neural and graph networks. Data-Centric Engineering3, 24 (2022)

2022
[76]

In: 2024 IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics (BHI), pp

Iacovelli, A., Pegolotti, L., Salvador, M., Stoppa, E., Santambrogio, M.D., Mars- den, A.: A novel lstm and graph neural networks approach for cardiovascular simulations. In: 2024 IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics (BHI), pp. 1–8 (2024). IEEE

2024
[77]

Tsinghua Science and Technology27(4), 692–708 (2021)

Oloulade, B.M., Gao, J., Chen, J., Lyu, T., Al-Sabri, R.: Graph neural archi- tecture search: A survey. Tsinghua Science and Technology27(4), 692–708 (2021)

2021
[78]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 17009–17021 (2020)

You, J., Ying, Z., Leskovec, J.: Design space for graph neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 17009–17021 (2020)

2020
[79]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 5757–5788 (2024)

Kuang, K., Dean, F., B Jedlicki, J., Ouyang, D., Philippakis, A., Sontag, D., Alaa, A.M.: Med-real2sim: Non-invasive medical digital twins using physics-informed self-supervised learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 5757–5788 (2024)

2024
[80]

NPJ digital medicine3(1), 119 (2020) 38

Rieke, N., Hancox, J., Li, W., Milletari, F., Roth, H.R., Albarqouni, S., Bakas, S., Galtier, M.N., Landman, B.A., Maier-Hein, K.,et al.: The future of digital health with federated learning. NPJ digital medicine3(1), 119 (2020) 38

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Paris Lodron University of Salzburg and Aalborg University in Copenhagen (2020)

Jeske, S.J.: Digital twins in healthcare. Paris Lodron University of Salzburg and Aalborg University in Copenhagen (2020)

2020

[2] [2]

Journal of the American Heart Association13(19), 031981 (2024)

Sel, K., Osman, D., Zare, F., Masoumi Shahrbabak, S., Brattain, L., Hahn, J.- O., Inan, O.T., Mukkamala, R., Palmer, J., Paydarfar, D.,et al.: Building digital 31 twins for cardiovascular health: From principles to clinical impact. Journal of the American Heart Association13(19), 031981 (2024)

2024

[3] [3]

PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania (2023)

Kissas, G.: Towards digital twins for cardiovascular flows: A hybrid machine learning and computational fluid dynamics approach. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania (2023)

2023

[4] [4]

Digital Medicine10(4), 00013 (2024)

Huang, L., Pan, L., Wu, C., Tian, M., Li, Q., Peng, Y., Li, Q., Li, Y.: Appli- cation and development prospect of digital twin in the forensic identification of cardiovascular diseases. Digital Medicine10(4), 00013 (2024)

2024

[5] [5]

Bioengineering12(10), 1102 (2025)

Canino, G., Di Costanzo, A., Salerno, N., Leo, I., Cannataro, M., Guzzi, P.H., Veltri, P., Sorrentino, S., De Rosa, S., Torella, D.: Artificial intelligence in car- diac electrophysiology: a clinically oriented review with engineering primers. Bioengineering12(10), 1102 (2025)

2025

[6] [6]

Journal of personalized medicine13(10), 1522 (2023)

Meijer, C., Uh, H.-W., El Bouhaddani, S.: Digital twins in healthcare: Method- ological challenges and opportunities. Journal of personalized medicine13(10), 1522 (2023)

2023

[7] [7]

NPJ digital medicine5(1), 126 (2022)

Coorey, G., Figtree, G.A., Fletcher, D.F., Snelson, V.J., Vernon, S.T., Winlaw, D., Grieve, S.M., McEwan, A., Yang, J.Y.H., Qian, P.,et al.: The health digital twin to tackle cardiovascular disease—a review of an emerging interdisciplinary field. NPJ digital medicine5(1), 126 (2022)

2022

[8] [8]

Cardiovascular Diabetology24(1), 293 (2025)

Strocchi, M., Hammersley, D.J., Halliday, B.P., Prasad, S.K., Niederer, S.A.: Car- diac digital twins: a tool to investigate the function and treatment of the diabetic heart. Cardiovascular Diabetology24(1), 293 (2025)

2025