Synthetic data generation for a longitudinal cohort study – evaluation, method extension and reproduction of published data analysis results
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to individual-level health data is essential for gaining new insights and advancing science. In particular, modern methods based on artificial intelligence rely on the availability of and access to large datasets. In the health sector, access to individual-level data is often challenging due to privacy concerns. A promising alternative is the generation of fully synthetic data, i.e., data generated through a randomised process that have similar statistical properties as the original data, but do not have a one-to-one correspondence with the original individual-level records. In this study, we use a state-of-the-art synthetic data generation method and perform in-depth quality analyses of the generated data for a specific use case in the field of nutrition. We demonstrate the need for careful analyses of synthetic data that go beyond descriptive statistics and provide valuable insights into how to realise the full potential of synthetic datasets. By extending the methods, but also by thoroughly analysing the effects of sampling from a trained model, we are able to largely reproduce significant real-world analysis results in the chosen use case.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | high |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | high |
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 | 0.080 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it