ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2026
An ELIXIR scoping review on domain-specific evaluation metrics for synthetic data in life sciences.
Article in NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Synth4bench: generating synthetic data for benchmarking tumor-only somatic variant calling algorithms.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Synthetic data (SD) has become an increasingly important asset in the life sciences, helping address data scarcity, privacy concerns, and barriers to data access. Creating artificial datasets that mirror the characteristics of real data allows researchers to develop and validate computational methods in controlled environments. Despite its promise, the adoption of SD in life sciences hinges on rigorous evaluation metrics designed to assess their fidelity and reliability. To explore the current landscape of SD evaluation metrics in distinct life sciences domains, the ELIXIR Machine Learning Focus Group performed a systematic review of the scientific literature following the PRISMA guidelines. Six critical domains were examined to identify current practices for assessing SD. Findings reveal that, while generation methods are rapidly evolving, systematic evaluation is often overlooked, limiting researchers' ability to compare, validate, and trust synthetic datasets across different domains. This systematic review underscores the urgent need for robust, standardized evaluation approaches that not only bolster confidence in SD but also guide its effective and responsible implementation. By laying the groundwork for establishing domain-specific yet interoperable standards, this scoping review paves the way for future initiatives aimed at enhancing the role of SD in scientific discovery, clinical practice and beyond.
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.