ArticleJAMIA open2022
Validating a membership disclosure metric for synthetic health data.
Article in JAMIA open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synthetic health data in Canada: A scoping review of methods, applications, and data sources.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026Article
- Should we synthesize more than we need: impact of synthetic data generation for high-dimensional cross-sectional medical data.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- A consensus privacy metrics framework for synthetic data.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Privacy-by-Design Approach to Generate Two Virtual Clinical Trials for Multiple Sclerosis and Release Them as Open Datasets: Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Augmenting Insufficiently Accruing Oncology Clinical Trials Using Generative Models: Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- A scoping review of privacy and utility metrics in medical synthetic data.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- An assessment of synthetic data generation, use and disclosure under Canadian privacy regulations.AI and ethics · 2025Article
- An evaluation of the replicability of analyses using synthetic health data.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Utilization of anonymization techniques to create an external control arm for clinical trial data.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Observational
- Evaluating the Utility and Privacy of Synthetic Breast Cancer Clinical Trial Data Sets.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2023Article
- A comparison of synthetic data generation and federated analysis for enabling international evaluations of cardiovascular health.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A Privacy Nihilist Perspective on Clinical Data Sharing: Open Clinical Data Sharing is Dead, Long Live the Walled Garden.Journal of the Society for Clinical Data Management · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: One of the increasingly accepted methods to evaluate the privacy of synthetic data is by measuring the risk of membership disclosure. This is a measure of the F1 accuracy that an adversary would correctly ascertain that a target individual from the same population as the real data is in the dataset used to train the generative model, and is commonly estimated using a data partitioning methodology with a 0.5 partitioning parameter. Objective: Validate the membership disclosure F1 score, evaluate and improve the parametrization of the partitioning method, and provide a benchmark for its interpretation. Materials and methods: We performed a simulated membership disclosure attack on 4 population datasets: an Ontario COVID-19 dataset, a state hospital discharge dataset, a national health survey, and an international COVID-19 behavioral survey. Two generative methods were evaluated: sequential synthesis and a generative adversarial network. A theoretical analysis and a simulation were used to determine the correct partitioning parameter that would give the same F1 score as a ground truth simulated membership disclosure attack. Results: The default 0.5 parameter can give quite inaccurate membership disclosure values. The proportion of records from the training dataset in the attack dataset must be equal to the sampling fraction of the real dataset from the population. The approach is demonstrated on 7 clinical trial datasets. Conclusions: Our proposed parameterization, as well as interpretation and generative model training guidance provide a theoretically and empirically grounded basis for evaluating and managing membership disclosure risk for synthetic data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.