UPDATED 16:55 EDT / JUNE 07 2018

BIG DATA

All of us: Digital twinning from the National Institutes of Health

In a previous article, Digital twins for personalized medicine: promising with caveats, we examined the pros and cons of digital twin technology applied to medicine at a personal level. Digital twin technology was devised to model physical objects, both their elements as well as the dynamics of their operation. Each model is a unique one-to-one correspondence with the physical object.

Applying this approach to medicine, simulating the whole human through genomics, physiology and environments and lifestyle over time, the promise is a much-improved delivery of healthcare. We raised some concerns about this, but a recent announcement from the National Institutes of Health has actually addressed some of those concerns. Others remain.

In 2015, the Obama administration announced a genetic and collection program, The Precision Medicine Initiative or PMI. The NIH created a research program to gather data from one million volunteers, the “All of Us,” program, designed to jumpstart personalized medicine. That program has recently come out of beta testing and is in production. While the program itself is not explicitly aimed at creating digital twins, its operation is creating much of the data needed to develop digital twins.

PMI just completed a yearlong beta test period with 25,000 volunteers, and is looking to transform the relationship between researchers and participants, bringing them together as partners to inform the program’s directions, goals and return of research information. These efforts include building trust among populations historically underrepresented in research.

Unlike many large medical research studies, All of Us has some unique and very positive aspects. For instance:

  • Participants in the program will be considered partners.
  • The collection of participants will reflect the diversity of the American population.
  • Trust will be earned through engagement and transparency.
  • Participants have access to information and data about themselves.
  • Participants may withdraw at any time, and remove their data except for those instances where it is already used in a study.
  • Data will be broadly accessible, but:
  • The program will adhere to the PMI Privacy and Trust Principles and the PMI Data Security Policy Principles and Framework.

It is unusual for a medical study to engage with participants as well as nontraditional researchers. The above guidelines do not, however, address the issues of:

  • Identity management
  • De-identification
  • Encryption
  • Physical security
  • Security policy and procedures

The PMI program should be commended for addressing all of these concerns, and it will govern the use of the use of the data. Creating a cohort of digital twins that include genomic, physiologic and social data on individuals poses a massive risk of invasion and disclosure, both malicious and innocent. The data security framework allays some concerns expressed in the previous article. To summarize:

Summary of concerns about digital twins for personalized medicine

Concerns PMI solutions
In engineered twins, sensors provide streaming information about the state of the object. There are devices to monitor certain elements of a person now, such as vital signs and activity, but to provide the same for an individual, such as blood tests, specimens and scans, is prohibitively expensive, intrusive and time-consuming. AllofUs solves this program by being funded by the NIH. The 21st Century Cures Act, passed in December 2016, authorized a total of $1.5 billion over ten years for the program. However, for wider practice, this will remain a constraint. Will payers (insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.) reimburse for the extensive testing, collection, etc.
There is the potential to drive social inequality leading to discrimination by identifying traits that are not “normal” based on patterns found in a collection of digital twins. Digital Twins models may be oblivious to fair-mindedness. The variation between people can be transparent, giving rise to generalization and discrimination. Use of personal biological and lifestyle data will need to be subject to strict governance. Fair-mindedness is an implied concept, but how the models are used will be beyond the control of the NIH. For example, the results of blood tests are protected by HIPAA, but data brokers can assemble prescription data, for example, to divulge a condition. Once digital twins are released, it is easy to see how abuse could happen. Denial of credit, employment, insurance, etc.
As many as half the clinical trials reported in medical journals are reversed over time and unfortunately, many papers in the journals are ghost-written by interested parties. Promising drugs and therapies with little commercial potential do not even get trials. The information needed to build a human Digital Twin is, unfortunately, missing and perverted. Add to that the commercial influence of the medical/pharmaceutical complex, and Digital Twins for medicine could easily devolve into a riot of subjective opinion. In the Security Principles Framework document, it states that, “The primary users of the PMI data include individual participants, researchers, developers, citizen scientists, and health care providers.” In other words, the data will be available to parties beyond the usual realm of medical researchers and pharma. Can the NIH ensure that these voices are heard?

Digital Twins can provide a way to analyze practices in current debates on health care, such as wellness, disease, preventative care and enhancement. In the same way a Digital Twin of a jet engine in flight can analyze and react to inputs, a patient Digital Twin will follow “normal functioning,” “derangement,” “preventative medicine,” “performance optimization” and “enhancement.”

The PMI is addressing some of the concerns about digital twins for personalized medicine, but other concerns remain:

  • Discrimination: Such intimate detail about an individual’s genome, habits, medications and ethnicity can be an indelible identifier and potentially inhabit their lives.
  • Medicine is shaky: The practice of medicine simply cannot be reduced to a series of algorithms, especially when expert opinion embedded in the models is far from unanimous.
  • Weight of Standard of Care: Practitioners are protected from liability by not deviating form is considered the standard. No amount of model sophistication can overcome that.
  • Reliance on Funded research: With funding for research coming from deep-pocketed organizations with an agenda, published research is not reliable.
  • Conflict of Interest in the NIH itself: The NIH and FDA both have a history of exchanging their leaders with those from the healthcare industry.
  • Inability to detach from your twin: It is easy to conceive of a situation where a patient’s twin follows then from doctor to doctor. Whatever bias, incompleteness and error exists in the model, it would be difficult to minimize it.

Given its lofty principles, the PMI has the potential to make a significant contribution to our understanding of healthcare. Issues about a Digital Twin, however, are still concerning.

Image: spirit111/Pixabay

A message from John Furrier, co-founder of SiliconANGLE:

Your vote of support is important to us and it helps us keep the content FREE.

One click below supports our mission to provide free, deep, and relevant content.  

Join our community on YouTube

Join the community that includes more than 15,000 #CubeAlumni experts, including Amazon.com CEO Andy Jassy, Dell Technologies founder and CEO Michael Dell, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger, and many more luminaries and experts.

“TheCUBE is an important partner to the industry. You guys really are a part of our events and we really appreciate you coming and I know people appreciate the content you create as well” – Andy Jassy

THANK YOU