ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Synthetic4Health: generating annotated synthetic clinical letters.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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.
- Implementing generative artificial intelligence in precision oncology: safety, governance, and significance.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2026Review
- Evaluating Large Language Models in Interpreting MRI Reports and Recommending Treatment for Vestibular Schwannoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical letters contain sensitive information, limiting their use in model training, medical research, and education. This study aims to generate reliable, diverse, and de-identified synthetic clinical letters to support these tasks. We investigated multiple pre-trained language models for text masking and generation, focusing on Bio_ClinicalBERT, and applied different masking strategies. Evaluation included qualitative and quantitative assessments, downstream named entity recognition (NER) tasks, and clinically focused evaluations using BioGPT and GPT-3.5-turbo. The experiments show: (1) encoder-only models perform better than encoder-decoder models; (2) models trained on general corpora perform comparably to clinical-domain models if clinical entities are preserved; (3) preserving clinical entities and document structure aligns with the task objectives; (4) Masking strategies have a noticeable impact on the quality of synthetic clinical letters: masking stopwords has a positive impact, while masking nouns or verbs has a negative effect; (5) The BERTScore should be the primary quantitative evaluation metric, with other metrics serving as supplementary references; (6) Contextual information has only a limited effect on the models' understanding, suggesting that synthetic letters can effectively substitute real ones in downstream NER tasks; (7) Although the model occasionally generates hallucinated content, it appears to have little effect on overall clinical performance. Unlike previous research, which primarily focuses on reconstructing original letters by training language models, this paper provides a foundational framework for generating diverse, de-identified clinical letters. It offers a direction for utilizing the model to process real-world clinical letters, thereby helping to expand datasets in the clinical domain. Our codes and trained models are available at https://github.com/HECTA-UoM/Synthetic4Health.
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.