ABSTRACT
The use of synthetic data is a promising solution to facilitate the sharing and reuse of health-related data beyond its initial collection while addressing privacy concerns. However, there is still no consensus on a standardized approach for systematically evaluating the privacy and utility of synthetic data, impeding its broader adoption. In this work, we present a comprehensive review and systematization of current methods for evaluating synthetic health-related data, focusing on both privacy and utility aspects. Our findings suggest that there are a variety of methods for assessing the utility of synthetic data, but no consensus on which method is optimal in which scenario. Moreover, we found that most studies included in this review do not evaluate the privacy protection provided by synthetic data, and those that do often significantly underestimate the risks.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
In this revision, we surveyed corpus that were specific to the medical domain. To do so, we have changed the source repositories of our document corpus to the medical databases, PubMed and Embase. We reviewed papers up to July 2024. As a result, we re-taxonomized and charted 38 new publications coming from the medical communities. Notably, our high-level takeaways on the consensus and privacy evaluations remained similar even after completely changing the corpus, which shows that we have identified robust trends.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
