Overcoming barriers to data sharing with medical image generation: a comprehensive evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Privacy concerns around sharing personally identifiable information are a major barrier to data sharing in medical research. In many cases, researchers have no interest in a particular individual's information but rather aim to derive insights at the level of cohorts. Here, we utilise generative adversarial networks (GANs) to create medical imaging datasets consisting entirely of synthetic patient data. The synthetic images ideally have, in aggregate, similar statistical properties to those of a source dataset but do not contain sensitive personal information. We assess the quality of synthetic data generated by two GAN models for chest radiographs with 14 radiology findings and brain computed tomography (CT) scans with six types of intracranial haemorrhages. We measure the synthetic image quality by the performance difference of predictive models trained on either the synthetic or the real dataset. We find that synthetic data performance disproportionately benefits from a reduced number of classes. Our benchmark also indicates that at low numbers of samples per class, label overfitting effects start to dominate GAN training. We conducted a reader study in which trained radiologists discriminate between synthetic and real images. In accordance with our benchmark results, the classification accuracy of radiologists improves with an increasing resolution. Our study offers valuable guidelines and outlines practical conditions under which insights derived from synthetic images are similar to those that would have been derived from real data. Our results indicate that synthetic data sharing may be an attractive alternative to sharing real patient-level data in the right setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".