Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40272814›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2025

Exploring Detection Methods for Synthetic Medical Datasets Created With a Large Language Model.

Andrea Taloni, Giulia Coco, Marco Pellegrini, Matthias Wjst, Niccolò Salgari, Giovanna Carnovale-Scalzo, Vincenzo Scorcia, Massimo Busin, Giuseppe Giannaccare

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Comparing the performance of four mainstream large language models on medical literature review generation: a human expert evaluation in SMILE surgery.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  2. Prompt injection of OpenAI custom GPTs leaks informatics secrets.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Andrea TaloniDepartment of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Giulia CocoDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Marco PellegriniDepartment of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Matthias WjstInstitut für KI und Informatik in der Medizin, Lehrstuhl für Medizinische Informatik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, München, Germany.
Niccolò SalgariDepartment of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Giovanna Carnovale-ScalzoDepartment of Ophthalmology, "Magna Graecia" University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy.
Vincenzo ScorciaDepartment of Ophthalmology, "Magna Graecia" University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy.
Massimo BusinDepartment of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Giuseppe GiannaccareEye Clinic, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Recently, it was proved that the large language model Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4; OpenAI) can fabricate synthetic medical datasets designed to support false scientific evidence. Objective: To uncover statistical patterns that may suggest fabrication in datasets produced by large language models and to improve these synthetic datasets by attempting to remove detectable marks of nonauthenticity, investigating the limits of generative artificial intelligence. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this quality improvement study, synthetic datasets were produced for 3 fictional clinical studies designed to compare the outcomes of 2 alternative treatments for specific ocular diseases. Synthetic datasets were produced using the default GPT-4o model and a custom GPT. Data fabrication was conducted in November 2024. Exposure: Prompts were submitted to GPT-4o to produce 12 "unrefined" datasets, which underwent forensic examination. Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the custom GPT Synthetic Data Creator was built with detailed instructions to generate 12 "refined" datasets designed to evade authenticity checks. Then, forensic analysis was repeated on these enhanced datasets. Main Outcomes and Measures: Forensic analysis was performed to identify statistical anomalies in demographic data, distribution uniformity, and repetitive patterns of last digits, as well as linear correlations, distribution shape, and outliers of study variables. Datasets were also qualitatively assessed for the presence of unrealistic clinical records. Results: Forensic analysis identified 103 fabrication marks among 304 tests (33.9%) in unrefined datasets. Notable flaws included mismatch between patient names and gender (n = 12), baseline visits occurring during weekends (n = 12), age calculation errors (n = 9), lack of uniformity (n = 4), and repetitive numerical patterns in last digits (n = 7). Very weak correlations (r < 0.1) were observed between study variables (n = 12). In addition, variables showed a suspicious distribution shape (n = 6). Compared with unrefined datasets, refined ones showed 29.3% (95% CI, 23.5%-35.1%) fewer signs of fabrication (14 of 304 statistical tests performed [4.6%]). Four refined datasets passed forensic analysis as authentic; however, suspicious distribution shape or other issues were found in others. Conclusions and Relevance: Sufficiently sophisticated custom GPTs can perform complex statistical tasks and may be abused to fabricate synthetic datasets that can pass forensic analysis as authentic.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDatabases, FactualDatasets as TopicLanguageHumansLarge Language ModelsQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID40272814
PMCPMC12022867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.