ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2026
RINet: synthetic data training for indirect estimation of clinical reference distributions.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndirect methods for estimating clinical reference intervals (RIs) use statistical analysis to identify non-pathological sub-distributions within large datasets acquired from routine clinical testing. This approach has the potential to accelerate the estimation of precise RIs, accounting for influential variables such as age, gender, and ethnicity. Most existing methods are based on traditional statistics and hand-crafted algorithms. The investigation of supervised learning, which often outperforms traditional approaches, has been impeded by the limitations of real-world data. However, previous studies have widely used synthetic data for evaluating and benchmarking indirect methods due several advantages over real-world data, including greater control, variability, accessibility, and the availability of exact ground-truth RIs. Synthetic data may also provide a pathway for developing data-driven solutions for indirect RI estimation.
methodsIn this study, we leveraged synthetic data to train two convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to predict the parameters of underlying reference distributions (RDs) in diverse real-world clinical datasets. While one model was trained for standard univariate data, the other was extended to bivariate data, enabling the prediction of covariance between clinical analytes. Trained models were evaluated using both real-world and synthetic test datasets and compared with four alternative algorithms.
resultsModel predictions closely matched directly estimated RIs and RDs in real-world data and known RDs in synthetic data, outperforming four alternative indirect methods: GMM, refineR, reflimR, and RINet
conclusionsSynthetic data training is a viable approach for developing accurate indirect RI estimation models for both univariate and bivariate clinical data. This strategy could help address some limitations of real-world data, direct analyses, and univariate RIs.
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.