REVIEW 1 cited by
Can I trust my fake data -- A comprehensive quality assessment framework for synthetic tabular data in healthcare
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Can I trust my fake data -- A comprehensive quality assessment framework for synthetic tabular data in healthcare
read the original abstract
Ensuring safe adoption of AI tools in healthcare hinges on access to sufficient data for training, testing and validation. In response to privacy concerns and regulatory requirements, using synthetic data has been suggested. Synthetic data is created by training a generator on real data to produce a dataset with similar statistical properties. Competing metrics with differing taxonomies for quality evaluation have been suggested, resulting in a complex landscape. Optimising quality entails balancing considerations that make the data fit for use, yet relevant dimensions are left out of existing frameworks. We performed a comprehensive literature review on the use of quality evaluation metrics on SD within the scope of tabular healthcare data and SD made using deep generative methods. Based on this and the collective team experiences, we developed a conceptual framework for quality assurance. The applicability was benchmarked against a practical case from the Dutch National Cancer Registry. We present a conceptual framework for quality assurance of SD for AI applications in healthcare that aligns diverging taxonomies, expands on common quality dimensions to include the dimensions of Fairness and Carbon footprint, and proposes stages necessary to support real-life applications. Building trust in synthetic data by increasing transparency and reducing the safety risk will accelerate the development and uptake of trustworthy AI tools for the benefit of patients. Despite the growing emphasis on algorithmic fairness and carbon footprint, these metrics were scarce in the literature review. The overwhelming focus was on statistical similarity using distance metrics while sequential logic detection was scarce. A consensus-backed framework that includes all relevant quality dimensions can provide assurance for safe and responsible real-life applications of SD.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
FairDiffuseVQVAE: Sampling-Time Fairness in Tabular Diffusion via Conditional Refinement of Vector-Quantized Latents
FairDiffuseVQVAE reaches state-of-the-art fairness on the standard tabular benchmark (DPR 0.702, EOR 0.686) by uniform protected-attribute sampling at inference, paying ~15 AUC points of utility.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.