Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41209330›Full record

ArticleAI and ethics2025

An assessment of synthetic data generation, use and disclosure under Canadian privacy regulations.

Lisa Pilgram, Anita Fineberg, Elizabeth Jonker, Khaled El Emam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AI and ethics, 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. Review
  2. 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.

Lisa PilgramChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1020-0650
Anita FinebergChang School of Continuing Education, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Canada.
Elizabeth JonkerChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Khaled El EmamChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synthetic data generation (SDG) plays an increasingly important role as a research and innovation accelerator. While SDG can enable privacy-preserving data sharing, it also raises privacy concerns compounded by uncertainty how privacy law applies to SDG and the generated data itself. Such uncertainty can hinder positive applications of SDG and put individual privacy rights at risk. This study aims to understand how SDG and synthetic data are treated under Canadian federal privacy law, identifying regulatory gaps that extend beyond the Canadian context and proposing recommendations to address them. Our analysis shows that SDG is not explicitly addressed by the statute. While SDG arguably qualifies as a use of personal information, it is unclear whether consent is required for SDG. Further Fair Information Practices with respective obligations apply to SDG just as they do to any use of personal information. The generated data itself could fall outside the law's scope since it is more likely to qualify as non-personal than traditionally de-identified data but the concept of identifiability under the statute remains ambiguous, particularly regarding inferences. An unclear definition of identifiability represents a relevant gap in privacy law that can harm the individual directly, through the exposure of personal information, or indirectly, by hindering the adoption of SDG and other beneficial privacy-enhancing technologies. A Code of Practice, anchored in legislation, could address such privacy concerns and ensure the proper application of SDG.

Indexed as

Disclosure riskGenerative artificial intelligencePrivacySynthetic data

Identifiers

PMID41209330
PMCPMC12592242

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.