04 · 21 proprietary layers
Layer 11 of 21 · Clinical integration
Clinical Correlation Clinical-context integration.
Why it's needed
How do molecular findings relate to diagnosis, stage, treatment history, comorbidities and intent?
What it draws on
3 of 8 evidence domains.
What it produces
A structured interpretation informed by the case context.
Why it's essential
Layer 11 of 21.
1 · What it does
What Clinical Correlation does
The same molecular finding can mean different things in different cancers, stages and treatment histories. Clinical Correlation is intended to place the findings in the clinical context supplied by the treating team, so that interpretation is case-specific rather than generic.
2 · Scientific question
The question it addresses
How do molecular findings relate to diagnosis, stage, treatment history, comorbidities and intent?
Intended function
Describe bringing available clinical context into interpretation.
3 · Data inputs and required context
What it draws on
- 03 Clinical context
- 06 Treatment exposure
- 07 Patient factors
Diagnosis, stage, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities and treatment intent, as provided by the treating team.
4 · Scientific basis
The science behind it
Scientific basis
Clinical correlation is substantially an expert task. Software can structure the information — diagnosis, stage, lines of therapy, comorbidities and treatment intent — and highlight inconsistencies, but completeness depends on the records provided.
5 · Output and evidence sources
What it produces
Main output
A structured interpretation informed by the case context.
Output type
- Clinical-context integration. Depends on clinical information supplied by the treating team.
6 · Why it\u2019s essential
How it powers the Twin
Frames the executive summary and determines which evidence applies in the molecular-findings and treatment-options sections.
Report section
7 · Why it\u2019s needed
What it changes — for doctors, patients and researchers
Clinicians
Interpretation that reflects the case as you have described it, with the source and date of that information shown.
Doctor & Clinical TeamPatients & caregivers
Why the oncologist's knowledge of the whole person matters as much as the test result.
Patient & Caregiver8 · Dependencies and limitations
Limitations
- The source, currency and completeness of clinical information must be shown.
- It is not an automated substitute for clinician review.
9 · Review and uncertainty
How the output is handled
Output status
An AI-assisted analytical output presented as structured findings for clinician review. It becomes part of a report only after the treating oncologist has reviewed and signed it.
How uncertainty is communicated
Missing or outdated clinical fields are listed explicitly so their effect on interpretation is visible.
10 · Claim boundary
What this layer does not establish
It does not verify clinical information that was not provided, or replace the treating team's judgement.
The treating oncologist owns every decision. Every Twin report is reviewed and signed by the treating oncologist, then taken to KPCIRC's Molecular Tumour Board.
KPCIRC sign-off process