Synthetic clinical benchmarks for enterprise AI agents can pass existing utility checks and still remain structurally unrealistic, especially in privacy-sensitive healthcare settings where operational data are hard to access. We study how to improve such benchmarks without breaking the downstream utility checks already used in practice. We formulate benchmark revision as utility-constrained realism improvement: dataset changes should increase realism while staying above an operational utility floor. We instantiate this idea on a care-gap benchmark derived from Synthea-generated patients exercised through demonstration electronic health record workflows and then processed by the same downstream pipeline as operational data. Realism is measured through missingness structure, simplicity, structural plausibility, and population alignment. The baseline benchmark is extremely thin: sampled-pair missingness is 79.44%, only 12.75% of rows are actionable, 38.94% of patients have zero actionable measures, and top-three token concentration reaches 100.0%. Two deterministic revisions improve these panels while remaining above the current utility floor, whereas a naive densification control preserves unrealistic templating. We further show that internal benchmark realism and source fidelity to an aggregate operational reference are related but distinct objectives. These results suggest that synthetic benchmark quality should be optimized explicitly, with utility treated as one constraint rather than as sufficient evidence of realism.
Access to clinical data is essential for developing reliable healthcare machine learning systems, but direct use of electronic health records is constrained by privacy regulation, institutional review, data-use agreements, and the risk of re-identification. Synthetic data promises a practical alternative: it can preserve useful statistical and clinical structure while reducing exposure of sensitive patient records. Prior studies often evaluate a single generator, one dataset, or a narrow downstream task, making it difficult to know when synthetic data can support model development and when it fails to preserve task-critical signal. We introduce CoMedBench, a reproducible benchmark that evaluates a family of generators under a common clinical-validity framework and one shared training and evaluation engine, spanning static tabular and temporal downstream tasks on established critical-care datasets. In total the benchmark spans 37 dataset-task pairs across two modalities consists of 20 static tabular and 17 temporal ICU time-series-drawn from seven public data sources: three intensive-care databases (MIMIC-III, MIMIC-IV, and eICU) together with the UCI Machine Learning Repository, the CDC BRFSS diabetes cohort (2015), NHANES (1999-2014), and the pycox survival datasets (GBSG and METABRIC). The benchmark evaluates both statistical fidelity and task utility by comparing models trained and tested across real and synthetic data. In these settings, synthetic training data preserves most of the downstream signal: on tabular tasks the reference generator CoMed-CTGAN retains a mean AUROC utility (the synthetic-to-real performance ratio) of 90.6%, rising to 97.3% for the strongest generator, CoMed-TVAE. Temporal ICU tasks are harder and more generator-sensitive: CoMed-CTGAN retains 81.6% (AUROC) and only 64.0% under the imbalance-sensitive AUPRC, whereas CoMed-TVAE still retains ~95% (AUROC).
Akanta Das, Al Amin Farhad, Mrinmoy Sarkar Anto +3
Synthetic healthcare data are widely proposed as privacy-preserving substitutes for real patient data, yet their evaluation remains dominated by statistical similarity and predictive performance that do not reflect clinical validity. We introduce a multi-dimensional evaluation framework grounded in epidemiology, assessing descriptive fidelity, clinical utility, and structural validity, corresponding to descriptive, predictive, and causal questions. We evaluate four representative generative paradigms - GAN-based, VAE-boosted, diffusion-based, and masked modelling - using PRIME-CVD, a 50,000-person cohort with known ground-truth structure. While all models reproduce marginal distributions, none simultaneously preserve subgroup structure, effect estimates, and dependency structure. Notably, models with strong distributional fidelity can exhibit poor calibration and distorted relationships, leading to unreliable inference. These results show that current evaluation practices can overestimate synthetic data quality and motivate domain-informed assessment based on the ability to support valid clinical and scientific conclusions.
Synthetic data is widely used in healthcare to create datasets that preserve statistical properties of real data without exposing sensitive patient information. Generating and evaluating synthetic data across privacy, utility, and fairness dimensions is crucial for enabling high-quality data availability in downstream prediction tasks and clinical decision making. We present \textbf{Memisis}, a tool that orchestrates and evaluates synthetic data by leveraging existing synthesis libraries, large language models (LLMs), and state-of-the-art evaluation metrics. Our tool creates a unified workflow for data generation, validation, and evaluation. Users can control training size, training epochs, and the number of synthetic rows to sample. Beyond manual configuration, an interactive agent mode allows users to specify data generation goals in natural language, and the tool orchestrates the full pipeline by invoking existing synthesizers while performing the requisite evaluation. For the demo, we use an open-source schizophrenia dataset with protected attributes related to race and gender, evaluate six synthesizers spanning GANs, VAEs, diffusion models, and normalizing flows, and use a local LLM to orchestrate the workflow. The system affords users flexibility and control over the data generation and evaluation process.