Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39464796›Full record

ReviewJAMIA open2024

Large language models and synthetic health data: progress and prospects.

Daniel Smolyak, Margrét V Bjarnadóttir, Kenyon Crowley, Ritu Agarwal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

4 authors.

Daniel SmolyakDepartment of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD 20742, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3860-2181
Margrét V BjarnadóttirRobert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD 20740, United States.
Kenyon CrowleyAccenture Federal Services, Arlington, VA 22203, United States.
Ritu AgarwalCenter for Digital Health and Artificial Intelligence, Carey Business School, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21202, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Given substantial obstacles surrounding health data acquisition, high-quality synthetic health data are needed to meet a growing demand for the application of advanced analytics for clinical discovery, prediction, and operational excellence. We highlight how recent advances in large language models (LLMs) present new opportunities for progress, as well as new risks, in synthetic health data generation (SHDG). Materials and Methods: We synthesized systematic scoping reviews in the SHDG domain, recent LLM methods for SHDG, and papers investigating the capabilities and limits of LLMs. Results: We summarize the current landscape of generative machine learning models (eg, Generative Adversarial Networks) for SHDG, describe remaining challenges and limitations, and identify how recent LLM approaches can potentially help mitigate them. Discussion: Six research directions are outlined for further investigation of LLMs for SHDG: evaluation metrics, LLM adoption, data efficiency, generalization, health equity, and regulatory challenges. Conclusion: LLMs have already demonstrated both high potential and risks in the health domain, and it is important to study their advantages and disadvantages for SHDG.

Indexed as

generative artificial intelligencehealth equitylarge language modelsresponsible AIsynthetic data

Identifiers

PMID39464796
PMCPMC11512648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.