An evaluation of the replicability of analyses using synthetic health data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthetic data generation is being increasingly used as a privacy preserving approach for sharing health data. In addition to protecting privacy, it is important to ensure that generated data has high utility. A common way to assess utility is the ability of synthetic data to replicate results from the real data. Replicability has been defined using two criteria: (a) replicate the results of the analyses on real data, and (b) ensure valid population inferences from the synthetic data. A simulation study using three heterogeneous real-world datasets evaluated the replicability of logistic regression workloads. Eight replicability metrics were evaluated: decision agreement, estimate agreement, standardized difference, confidence interval overlap, bias, confidence interval coverage, statistical power, and precision (empirical SE). The analysis of synthetic data used a multiple imputation approach whereby up to 20 datasets were generated and the fitted logistic regression models were combined using combining rules for fully synthetic datasets. The effects of synthetic data amplification were evaluated, and two types of generative models were used: sequential synthesis using boosted decision trees and a generative adversarial network (GAN). Privacy risk was evaluated using a membership disclosure metric. For sequential synthesis, adjusted model parameters after combining at least ten synthetic datasets gave high decision and estimate agreement, low standardized difference, as well as high confidence interval overlap, low bias, the confidence interval had nominal coverage, and power close to the nominal level. Amplification had only a marginal benefit. Confidence interval coverage from a single synthetic dataset without applying combining rules were erroneous, and statistical power, as expected, was artificially inflated when amplification was used. Sequential synthesis performed considerably better than the GAN across multiple datasets. Membership disclosure risk was low for all datasets and models. For replicable results, the statistical analysis of fully synthetic data should be based on at least ten generated datasets of the same size as the original whose analyses results are combined. Analysis results from synthetic data without applying combining rules can be misleading. Replicability results are dependent on the type of generative model used, with our study suggesting that sequential synthesis has good replicability characteristics for common health research workloads.
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 | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".