Harnessing the power of synthetic data in healthcare: innovation, application, and privacy

Abstract Data-driven decision-making in modern healthcare underpins innovation and predictive analytics in public health and clinical research. Synthetic data has shown promise in finance and economics to improve risk assessment, portfolio optimization, and algorithmic trading. However, higher stakes, potential liabilities, and healthcare practitioner distrust make clinical use of synthetic data difficult. This paper explores the potential benefits and limitations of synthetic data in the healthcare analytics context. We begin with real-world healthcare applications of synthetic data that informs government policy, enhance data privacy, and augment datasets for predictive analytics. We then preview future applications of synthetic data in the emergent field of digital twin technology. We explore the issues of data quality and data bias in synthetic data, which can limit applicability across different applications in the clinical context, and privacy concerns stemming from data misuse and risk of re-identification. Finally, we evaluate the role of regulatory agencies in promoting transparency and accountability and propose strategies for risk mitigation such as Differential Privacy (DP) and a dataset chain of custody to maintain data integrity, traceability, and accountability. Synthetic data can improve healthcare, but measures to protect patient well-being and maintain ethical standards are key to promote responsible use

Randomized clinical trials of machine learning interventions in health care: a systematic review

Importance: Despite the potential of machine learning to improve multiple aspects of patient care, barriers to clinical adoption remain. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are often a prerequisite to large-scale clinical adoption of an intervention, and important questions remain regarding how machine learning interventions are being incorporated into clinical trials in health care. Objective: To systematically examine the design, reporting standards, risk of bias, and inclusivity of RCTs for medical machine learning interventions. Evidence Review: In this systematic review, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection online databases were searched and citation chasing was done to find relevant articles published from the inception of each database to October 15, 2021. Search terms for machine learning, clinical decision-making, and RCTs were used. Exclusion criteria included implementation of a non-RCT design, absence of original data, and evaluation of nonclinical interventions. Data were extracted from published articles. Trial characteristics, including primary intervention, demographics, adherence to the CONSORT-AI reporting guideline, and Cochrane risk of bias were analyzed. Findings: Literature search yielded 19737 articles, of which 41 RCTs involved a median of 294 participants (range, 17-2488 participants). A total of 16 RCTS (39%) were published in 2021, 21 (51%) were conducted at single sites, and 15 (37%) involved endoscopy. No trials adhered to all CONSORT-AI standards. Common reasons for nonadherence were not assessing poor-quality or unavailable input data (38 trials [93%]), not analyzing performance errors (38 [93%]), and not including a statement regarding code or algorithm availability (37 [90%]). Overall risk of bias was high in 7 trials (17%). Of 11 trials (27%) that reported race and ethnicity data, the median proportion of participants from underrepresented minority groups was 21% (range, 0%-51%). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found that despite the large number of medical machine learning-based algorithms in development, few RCTs for these technologies have been conducted. Among published RCTs, there was high variability in adherence to reporting standards and risk of bias and a lack of participants from underrepresented minority groups. These findings merit attention and should be considered in future RCT design and reporting.Published versionThis study was supported by grants K23-DK125718 (Dr Shung) and K08-DE030216 (Dr Kann) from the National Institutes of Health, grant T32GM007753 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (Ms Plana), and grant F30-CA260780 from the National Cancer Institute (Ms Plana)