Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35928184›Full record

ArticleFuture healthcare journal2022

Generative adversarial networks and synthetic patient data: current challenges and future perspectives.

Anmol Arora, Ananya Arora

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Future healthcare journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Artificial Intelligence in Planning for Spine Surgery.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Anmol AroraUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Ananya AroraUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been heralded as one of the key technological innovations of the 21st century. Within healthcare, much attention has been placed upon the ability of deductive AI systems to analyse large datasets to find patterns that would be unfeasible to program. Generative AI, including generative adversarial networks, are a newer type of machine learning that functions to create fake data after learning the properties of real data. Artificially generated patient data has the potential to revolutionise clinical research and protect patient privacy. Using novel techniques, it is increasingly possible to fully anonymise datasets to the point where no datapoint is traceable to any real individual. This can be used to expand and balance datasets as well as to replace the use of real patient data in certain contexts. This paper focuses upon three key uses of synthetic data: clinical research, data privacy and medical education. We also highlight ethical and practical concerns that require consideration.

Indexed as

confidentialityethicsgenerative adversarial networkslegal frameworksmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID35928184
PMCPMC9345230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.