Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36928534›Full record

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.

Anmol Arora, Ananya Arora

Full text read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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 AroraSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4881-8293
Ananya AroraSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningBayes TheoremBlood PressureHumansSample Size

Identifiers

PMID36928534
PMCPMC10019654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read3
identifiers read5
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.