ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2025
To be or not to be, when synthetic data meet clinical pharmacology: A focused study on pharmacogenetics.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- To be or not to be, when synthetic data meet clinical pharmacology: A focused study on pharmacogenetics.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of synthetic data in pharmacology research has gained significant attention due to its potential to address privacy concerns and promote open science. In this study, we implemented and compared three synthetic data generation methods, CT-GAN, TVAE, and a simplified implementation of Avatar, for a previously published pharmacogenetic dataset of 253 patients with one measurement per patient (non-longitudinal). The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of these methods in terms of data utility and privacy trade off. Our results showed that CT-GAN and Avatar used with k = 10 (number of patients used to create the local model of generation) had the best overall performance in terms of data utility and privacy preservation. However, the TVAE method showed a relatively lower level of performance in these aspects. In terms of Hazard ratio estimation, Avatar with k = 10 produced HR estimates closest to the original data, whereas CT-GAN slightly underestimated the HR and TVAE showed the most significant deviation from the original HR. We also investigated the effect of applying the algorithms multiple times to improve results stability in terms of HR estimation. Our findings suggested that this approach could be beneficial, especially in the case of small datasets, to achieve more reliable and robust results. In conclusion, our study provides valuable insights into the performance of CT-GAN, TVAE, and Avatar methods for synthetic data generation in pharmacogenetic research. The application to other type of data and analyses (data driven) used in pharmacology should be further investigated.
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.