ArticlePloS one2023
Machine learning models trained on synthetic datasets of multiple sample sizes for the use of predicting blood pressure from clinical data in a national dataset.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Translation readiness of model-based synthetic tabular data in healthcare: a systematic review and governance audit.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Pooled it
- Synthetic Data in Healthcare and Drug Development: Definitions, Regulatory Frameworks, Issues.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Review
- Synthetic data as an investigative tool in hypertension and renal diseases research.World journal of methodology · 2025Article
- Synthetic data in medical imaging within the EHDS: a path forward for ethics, regulation, and standards.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Actionability of Synthetic Data in a Heterogeneous and Rare Health Care Demographic: Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe potential for synthetic data to act as a replacement for real data in research has attracted attention in recent months due to the prospect of increasing access to data and overcoming data privacy concerns when sharing data. The field of generative artificial intelligence and synthetic data is still early in its development, with a research gap evidencing that synthetic data can adequately be used to train algorithms that can be used on real data. This study compares the performance of a series machine learning models trained on real data and synthetic data, based on the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS).
methodsFeatures identified to be potentially of relevance by directed acyclic graphs were isolated from the NDNS dataset and used to construct synthetic datasets and impute missing data. Recursive feature elimination identified only four variables needed to predict mean arterial blood pressure: age, sex, weight and height. Bayesian generalised linear regression, random forest and neural network models were constructed based on these four variables to predict blood pressure. Models were trained on the real data training set (n = 2408), a synthetic data training set (n = 2408) and larger synthetic data training set (n = 4816) and a combination of the real and synthetic data training set (n = 4816). The same test set (n = 424) was used for each model.
resultsSynthetic datasets demonstrated a high degree of fidelity with the real dataset. There was no significant difference between the performance of models trained on real, synthetic or combined datasets. Mean average error across all models and all training data ranged from 8.12 To 8.33. This indicates that synthetic data was capable of training equally accurate machine learning models as real data. DISCUSSION: Further research is needed on a variety of datasets to confirm the utility of synthetic data to replace the use of potentially identifiable patient data. There is also further urgent research needed into evidencing that synthetic data can truly protect patient privacy against adversarial attempts to re-identify real individuals from the synthetic dataset.
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.