Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42602824›Full record

ArticleBJR artificial intelligence2026

A 7-criteria evaluation approach for the responsible use of synthetic medical data.

Ghada Zamzmi, Adarsh Subbaswamy, Rucha Deshpande, Diksha Sharma, Jana G Delfino, Aldo Badano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJR artificial intelligence, 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

6 authors.

Ghada ZamzmiDivision of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD 10903, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4723-5539
Adarsh SubbaswamyDivision of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD 10903, United States.
Rucha DeshpandeDivision of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD 10903, United States.
Diksha SharmaDivision of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD 10903, United States.
Jana G DelfinoDivision of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD 10903, United States.
Aldo BadanoDivision of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD 10903, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3712-6670

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To develop an approach for evaluating and reporting the quality of synthetic medical data (SMDs). Method: As SMDs become increasingly common, their responsible utilization benefits from a detailed characterization of their quality and value within the intended usage context. Here, we introduce an approach to assess SMDs across 7 dimensions: Congruence, Coverage, Constraint, Consistency, Comprehension, Compliance, and Completeness. We also describe an approach for reporting the quality of synthetic data to stakeholders. Results: We applied the proposed approach to 7 digital mammography datasets. The analysis underscored the strengths and limitations of each dataset across these dimensions. For example, while datasets generated by generative AI methods show high Congruence, they often fall short in Constraint and Completeness compared to those generated by knowledge-based methods. Additionally, our findings highlighted that the quality of generated data varies across different subgroups (eg, breast density) with certain subgroups (ie, dense and hetero) showing lower quality. This suggests that subgroup-specific fine-tuning of the generative process may have an effect on downstream tasks. Conclusions: The proposed approach provides stakeholders with a tool for assessing data quality, which may be used to better understand and analyse synthetic datasets.. Advances in knowledge: This study introduces an approach for assessing SMD quality. The approach offers a practical mechanism for reporting SMD quality, which can enhance the reliability and usefulness of synthetic datasets.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebreast imagingdigital mammographyevaluation metricsmedical devicesmedical imaging

Identifiers

PMID42602824
PMCPMC13476082

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.