Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42153294›Full record

ArticleBioethics2026

Artificial Intelligence-Generated Synthetic Data in Healthcare: A False Promise for Underserved Populations?

Stéphanie Baggio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Stéphanie BaggioInstitute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland.

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation 221381
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated synthetic data has emerged as a promising solution to address the underrepresentation of underserved populations in medical AI systems. By artificially generating data that mimics real-world patient information, proponents argue that AI-generated synthetic data can fill data gaps, improve algorithmic fairness, and mitigate bias without requiring costly data collection or raising privacy concerns. However, in this article, I challenge this optimistic view. I argue that AI-generated synthetic data may amplify existing biases rather than mitigate them, and complicate informed consent processes in ways that disproportionately harm underserved populations. I examine two critical ethical dimensions: (1) how the opacity inherent in synthetic data generation can reproduce and amplify discriminatory patterns present in the source data, and (2) how AI-generated synthetic data complexifies informed consent. I conclude that while AI-generated synthetic data offers apparent technical advantages, it fails to address, and may worsen, data disparities affecting underserved populations. Rather than pursuing synthetic solutions, I believe that we should address the structural barriers that prevent genuine inclusion of underserved populations in medical research.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiomedical ResearchVulnerable PopulationsAlgorithmsGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansInformed Consentalgorithmic biasartificial intelligenceinformed consentmedical ethicssynthetic dataunderserved populations

Identifiers

PMID42153294
PMCPMC13570765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.