Ruffini says the twin will consist of an embedded network of “neural block models”. They are essentially computational models of the average behavior of many interconnected neurons using the patient’s “connection” — a map of neural connections, he said. in the brain. In the case of epilepsy, some areas of the connection may be overstimulated; In the event of, for example, a stroke, the connection may be altered. After creating the twins, the team was able to use it to optimize brain stimulation of real patients “because we can run countless computer simulations until we find what we want.” needed,” Ruffini said. “In this sense, it’s like a computational model for weather forecasting.”
For example, to improve treatment for an epileptic patient, he or she would wear a hood every day for 20 minutes as it transmits transcranial electrical stimulation to their brain. Using a digital twin, Ruffini and his team were able to optimize the position of the excitation electrodes, as well as the amount of current applied.
Digitally incorporating any agency opens up a host of ethical questions. For example, does a patient have a right to know – or not to know – if, say, their twins predict that they will have a heart attack in two weeks? What happens to the twins after the patient dies? Will it have legal or moral rights of its own?
Matthias Braun, an ethologist at the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany, said: “On the one hand, virtual bodies offer us exciting, revolutionary avenues for developing new treatments. write about Ethics regarding the use of digital twins in healthcare. “However, on the other hand, it provides us with challenges,” he continued. The thing is, who should own a digital twin? The company that built it? “Or do you have the right to say, well, I refuse to use specific information or specific projections regarding my health coverage or regarding use in other contexts? In order not to violate autonomy or privacy, it is important that this particular person has control over usage [of their digital twin]Losing that control will lead to what Braun calls “digital slavery,” he said.
Ana Maiques, CEO of Neuroelectrics, said the company is grappling with what happens to the extremely personal data a digital twin is built on. “When you’re doing these types of personalization, you have to ask tough questions, don’t you? Who will own that data? What will you do with the data? ‘ she asked.
The project has engaged researchers to dissect the ethical and philosophical components of the effort, including Manuel Guerrero, a neuroscientist at Uppsala University, Sweden. For Neurotwin, a project based in Europe, the data collected will be protected by the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This means that any use of the data requires the consent of the owner, Guerrero said.
Guerrero and his team are also exploring whether the term “digital twin,” first coined for manufacturing, is still the most appropriate term for replicating something complex and dynamic. like brain or heart alive or not. Could its use lead to misunderstandings or increase expectations in society? “[The brain] much more complex than other types of twins that come from the production system, so the concept of twin to the brain is something the neuroscience community is debating,” he said.
