ArticlePloS one2024
Assessment of differentially private synthetic data for utility and fairness in end-to-end machine learning pipelines for tabular data.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing generative artificial intelligence in precision oncology: safety, governance, and significance.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- A scoping review of privacy and utility metrics in medical synthetic data.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Synthetic data in medical imaging within the EHDS: a path forward for ethics, regulation, and standards.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Differentially private (DP) synthetic datasets are a solution for sharing data while preserving the privacy of individual data providers. Understanding the effects of utilizing DP synthetic data in end-to-end machine learning pipelines impacts areas such as health care and humanitarian action, where data is scarce and regulated by restrictive privacy laws. In this work, we investigate the extent to which synthetic data can replace real, tabular data in machine learning pipelines and identify the most effective synthetic data generation techniques for training and evaluating machine learning models. We systematically investigate the impacts of differentially private synthetic data on downstream classification tasks from the point of view of utility as well as fairness. Our analysis is comprehensive and includes representatives of the two main types of synthetic data generation algorithms: marginal-based and GAN-based. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first that: (i) proposes a training and evaluation framework that does not assume that real data is available for testing the utility and fairness of machine learning models trained on synthetic data; (ii) presents the most extensive analysis of synthetic dataset generation algorithms in terms of utility and fairness when used for training machine learning models; and (iii) encompasses several different definitions of fairness. Our findings demonstrate that marginal-based synthetic data generators surpass GAN-based ones regarding model training utility for tabular data. Indeed, we show that models trained using data generated by marginal-based algorithms can exhibit similar utility to models trained using real data. Our analysis also reveals that the marginal-based synthetic data generated using AIM and MWEM PGM algorithms can train models that simultaneously achieve utility and fairness characteristics close to those obtained by models trained with real 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.