Archive \ Volume.17 2026 Issue 1

The Pharmacotherapy Digital Twin as a Negotiated Model of the Patient rather than a Computational Replica

, ,
  1. Department of Digital Twins and Pharmacotherapy, School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
  2. Department of Patient Modeling and Clinical Negotiation, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Abstract

Digital-twin terminology increasingly frames the patient as a computational entity whose changing state can be reproduced, predicted, and tested under simulated interventions. In pharmacotherapy, however, no model can fully reproduce the biological, experiential, behavioral, social, and organizational conditions through which medication effects emerge. Treating a pharmacotherapy digital twin as a replica may consequently conceal model selection, incomplete data, disagreement, uncertainty, and the distribution of decision authority. This article proposes Negotiated Pharmacotherapy Digital-Twin Theory, an original non-empirical account in which the twin is understood as a partial, task-specific, and revisable model assembled through structured interaction among clinical evidence, computational inference, and patient-reported knowledge. The proposed architecture comprises three inspectable model layers, a negotiation workspace, a disagreement register, an intended-use contract, a permission and human-control layer, provenance-preserving updates, and conditional representations of alternative futures. Negotiation does not require consensus or imply that every representation is equally credible. Instead, it makes assumptions, conflicts, uncertainties, and authority boundaries visible before a model is accepted for a specified medication decision. Evaluation would require technical verification, external and temporal validation, calibration and uncertainty assessment, subgroup analysis, human-factors testing, workflow evaluation, patient-concordance assessment, clinical-utility studies, and postdeployment monitoring. The theory does not establish predictive superiority, safer prescribing, improved outcomes, regulatory acceptability, or deployment readiness. Its original contribution is to replace the ontologically strong replica metaphor with a governed model of representation in which the patient remains distinct from—and able to contest—the digital account constructed for pharmacotherapy.


Downloads: 20
Views: 109

How to cite:
Vancouver
O'Connor P, Murphy G, Walsh N. The Pharmacotherapy Digital Twin as a Negotiated Model of the Patient rather than a Computational Replica. Arch Pharm Pract. 2026;17(1):31-8. https://doi.org/10.51847/9R2QJ1nnzc
APA
O'Connor, P., Murphy, G., & Walsh, N. (2026). The Pharmacotherapy Digital Twin as a Negotiated Model of the Patient rather than a Computational Replica. Archives of Pharmacy Practice, 17(1), 31-38. https://doi.org/10.51847/9R2QJ1nnzc

Download Citation
References

computational inference, patient-reported knowledge, and human authority.

Negotiated Pharmacotherapy Digital-Twin Theory proposes inspectable model layers, a negotiation workspace, a disagreement register, conditional alternative futures, permissioned updating, provenance, and an intended-use contract. These constructs may support research on how pharmacotherapy models represent patients, communicate uncertainty, distribute responsibility, and remain contestable.

The contribution is theoretical rather than prescriptive. It does not establish improved prediction, safer medication decisions, equitable benefit, regulatory acceptance, or deployment readiness. Its central boundary is that the patient always exceeds the model: no digital representation can independently determine what the patient is, what matters to them, or what medication decision should follow.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: None

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None

FINANCIAL SUPPORT: None

ETHICS STATEMENT: None

REFERENCES

  1. Björnsson B, Borrebaeck C, Elander N, Gasslander T, Gawel DR, Gustafsson M, et al. Digital twins to personalize medicine. Genome Med. 2020;12(1):4. doi:10.1186/s13073-019-0701-3
  2. Venkatesh KP, Raza MM, Kvedar JC. Health digital twins as tools for precision medicine: Considerations for computation, implementation, and regulation. NPJ Digit Med. 2022;5(1):150. doi:10.1038/s41746-022-00694-7
  3. Katsoulakis E, Wang Q, Wu H, Shahriyari L, Fletcher R, Liu J, et al. Digital twins for health: A scoping review. NPJ Digit Med. 2024;7(1):77. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01073-0
  4. Drummond D, Gonsard A. Definitions and characteristics of patient digital twins being developed for clinical use: Scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26. doi:10.2196/58504
  5. De Domenico M, Allegri L, Caldarelli G, D’Andrea V, Di Camillo B, Rocha LM, et al. Challenges and opportunities for digital twins in precision medicine from a complex systems perspective. NPJ Digit Med. 2025;8(1):37. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01402-3
  6. Cabitza F, Rasoini R, Gensini GF. Unintended consequences of machine learning in medicine. JAMA. 2017;318(6):517-8. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7797
  7. Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C, Mullainathan S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science. 2019;366(6464):447-53. doi:10.1126/science.aax2342
  8. Wiens J, Saria S, Sendak M, Ghassemi M, Liu VX, Doshi-Velez F, et al. Do no harm: A roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care. Nat Med. 2019;25(9):1337-40. doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0548-6
  9. Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Lynch J, Hughes G, A’Court C, et al. Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(11). doi:10.2196/jmir.8775
  10. Elwyn G, Durand MA, Song J, Aarts J, Barr PJ, Berger Z, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: Multistage consultation process. BMJ. 2017;359. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4891
  11. Amann J, Blasimme A, Vayena E, Frey D, Madai VI. Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: A multidisciplinary perspective. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020;20(1):310. doi:10.1186/s12911-020-01332-6
  12. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):44-56. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7
  13. Rajpurkar P, Chen E, Banerjee O, Topol EJ. AI in health and medicine. Nat Med. 2022;28(1):31-8. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01614-0
  14. Darwich AS, Ogungbenro K, Vinks AA, Powell JR, Reny JL, Marsousi N, et al. Why has model-informed precision dosing not yet become common clinical reality? Lessons from the past and a roadmap for the future. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017;101(5):646-56. doi:10.1002/cpt.659
  15. Wicha SG, Märtson AG, Nielsen EI, Koch BCP, Friberg LE, Alffenaar JWC, et al. From therapeutic drug monitoring to model-informed precision dosing for antibiotics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;109(4):928-41. doi:10.1002/cpt.2202
  16. Calvert M, Kyte D, Mercieca-Bebber R, Slade A, Chan AW, King MT, et al. Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO extension. JAMA. 2018;319(5):483-94. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21903
  17. Reading MJ, Merrill JA. Converging and diverging needs between patients and providers who are collecting and using patient-generated health data: An integrative review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(6):759-71. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocy006
  18. Sel K, Hawkins-Daarud A, Chaudhuri A, Osman D, Bahai A, Paydarfar D, et al. Survey and perspective on verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification of digital twins for precision medicine. NPJ Digit Med. 2025;8(1):40. doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01447-y
  19. Davis SE, Lasko TA, Chen G, Siew ED, Matheny ME. Calibration drift in regression and machine learning models for acute kidney injury. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(6):1052-61. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocx030
  20. Subbaswamy A, Saria S. From development to deployment: Dataset shift, causality, and shift-stable models in health AI. Biostatistics. 2020;21(2):345-52. doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxz041
  21. Prosperi M, Guo Y, Sperrin M, Koopman JS, Min JS, He X, et al. Causal inference and counterfactual prediction in machine learning for actionable healthcare. Nat Mach Intell. 2020;2(7):369-75. doi:10.1038/s42256-020-0197-y
  22. Vasey B, Nagendran M, Campbell B, Clifton DA, Collins GS, Denaxas S, et al. Reporting guideline for the early-stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI. Nat Med. 2022;28(5):924-33. doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01772-9
  23. Liu X, Cruz Rivera S, Moher D, Calvert MJ, Denniston AK; SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group. Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: The CONSORT-AI extension. Nat Med. 2020;26(9):1364-74. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1034-x
  24. Cruz Rivera S, Liu X, Chan AW, Denniston AK, Calvert MJ; SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group. Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: The SPIRIT-AI extension. Nat Med. 2020;26(9):1351-63. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1037-7
  25. Lekadir K, Frangi AF, Porras AR, Glocker B, Cintas C, Langlotz CP, et al. FUTURE-AI: International consensus guideline for trustworthy and deployable artificial intelligence in healthcare. BMJ. 2025;388. doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081554
  26. Keizer RJ, ter Heine R, Frymoyer A, Lesko LJ, Mangat R, Goswami S. Model-informed precision dosing at the bedside: Scientific challenges and opportunities. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2018;7(12):785-7. doi:10.1002/psp4.12353
  27. Gonzalez D, Rao GG, Bailey SC, Brouwer KLR, Cao Y, Crona DJ, et al. Precision dosing: Public health need, proposed framework, and anticipated impact. Clin Transl Sci. 2017;10(6):443-54. doi:10.1111/cts.12490
  28. Darwich AS, Polasek TM, Aronson JK, Ogungbenro K, Wright DFB, Achour B, et al. Model-informed precision dosing: Background, requirements, validation, implementation, and forward trajectory of individualizing drug therapy. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2021;61:225-45. doi:10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-033020-113257
  29. Peck RW. Precision medicine is not just genomics: The right dose for every patient. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2018;58:105-22. doi:10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010617-052446
  30. Ghassemi M, Oakden-Rayner L, Beam AL. The false hope of current approaches to explainable artificial intelligence in health care. Lancet Digit Health. 2021;3(11). doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00208-9
  31. Kelly CJ, Karthikesalingam A, Suleyman M, Corrado G, King D. Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):195. doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2
  32. Huang PH, Kim KH, Schermer M. Ethical issues of digital twins for personalized health care service: Preliminary mapping study. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(1). doi:10.2196/33081
  33. Seyyed-Kalantari L, Zhang H, McDermott MBA, Chen IY, Ghassemi M. Underdiagnosis bias of artificial intelligence algorithms applied to chest radiographs in under-served patient populations. Nat Med. 2021;27(12):2176-82. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01595-0
 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.