ReviewGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Ethical considerations in generative artificial intelligence for synthetic data generation in ophthalmology.
Review in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to reshape medical research, with ophthalmology at the forefront of this transformation. This narrative review examines the ethical considerations and challenges of using generative AI - particularly Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and diffusion models - to create synthetic data for ophthalmic research. Synthetic data offers genuine solutions to long-standing obstacles: data scarcity, augmentation of datasets for rare diseases, and privacy-preserving multi-institutional collaboration. Yet the same capabilities introduce formidable risks. Key concerns include patient re-identification from ostensibly anonymous synthetic data, the perpetuation and amplification of algorithmic biases inherent in source datasets, the prospect of scientific misconduct through "deepfake" medical images, and unresolved questions of data ownership, governance, and legal liability. Clinical validity cannot be inferred from computational metrics alone; it requires a multi-faceted evaluation framework that incorporates expert clinical review and downstream task performance. To harness the potential of generative AI while mitigating its risks, a proactive, interdisciplinary approach is essential - combining rigorous technical validation with ethical oversight and clear regulatory guidance. This article concludes with policy recommendations to foster responsible innovation and ensure that this powerful technology is developed and deployed safely, equitably, and aligned with the core tenets of scientific integrity and patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42611056What 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.