A Framework for Generating Realistic Synthetic Tabular Data in a Randomized Controlled Trial Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generation of realistic synthetic data has garnered considerable attention in recent years, particularly in the health research domain due to its utility in, for instance, sharing data while protecting patient privacy or determining optimal clinical trial design. While much work has been concentrated on synthetic image generation, generation of realistic and complex synthetic tabular data of the type most commonly encountered in classic epidemiological or clinical studies is still lacking, especially with regards to generating data for randomized controlled trials (RTCs). There is no consensus regarding the best way to generate synthetic tabular RCT data such that the underlying multivariate data distribution is preserved. Motivated by an RCT in the treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus, we empirically compared the ability of several strategies and two generation techniques (one machine learning, the other a more classical statistical method) to faithfully reproduce realistic data. Our results suggest that using a sequential generation approach with a R-vine copula model to generate baseline variables, followed by a simple random treatment allocation to mimic the RCT setting, and subsequent regression models for variables post-treatment allocation (such as the trial outcome) is the most effective way to generate synthetic tabular RCT data that capture important and realistic features of the real data.
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 | 0.036 | 0.170 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; 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".