ArticleResearch square2026
A novel pipeline for realistic synthetic longitudinal EHR data generation.
Article in Research square, 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
Background: Synthetic health data offers a promising means of sharing clinical information without compromising patient privacy. However, existing methods often produce outputs that differ in structure from real data and are evaluated in narrow contexts, limiting their practical use in downstream analytical workflows. This study introduces a pipeline that builds upon existing methods for generating realistic synthetic longitudinal electronic health record data, evaluates it across three diverse datasets, and offers evidence-based guidance on the use of synthetic data to replace or augment real data. Methods: The pipeline extends existing state of the art HALO and ConSequence frameworks with a post-processing step that reconstructs continuous variables and timestamps, producing synthetic data that closely matches the structure of real medical record datasets. It was applied to three clinically diverse datasets: a small longitudinal cohort, a medium-sized intensive-care dataset, and a very large multi-hospital administrative dataset. Realism was assessed alongside utility for machine learning, statistical modelling, and time series analysis tasks. Results: Across all datasets, the pipeline generated realistic synthetic data that preserved key statistical properties and relationships. Machine learning models trained on synthetic data achieved similar predictive accuracy and feature importance patterns to those trained on real data, indicating strong utility. Synthetic data also performed well in statistical modelling, with the direction and magnitude of effects generally closely aligned with the real data. However, it may be less suitable when precise estimates are required or when modelling relatively rare conditions. Importantly, although the pipeline reconstructed timestamp structures, it did not capture aggregate temporal patterns and the resulting data was therefore unsuitable for time series analysis. Conclusions: The pipeline produces realistic and analytically useful synthetic longitudinal electronic health record data across datasets of widely varying scales. These findings provide practical guidance on when synthetic data can meaningfully substitute for or complement real data.
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.