ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2026
Artificial intelligence-generated synthetic data for cancer research and clinical trials.
Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Next-generation synthetic trials in hematology with generative artificial intelligence.Leukemia · 2026Review
- AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Rare Diseases: Workflow-Integrated Precision Kidney Care.Clinics and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Synthetic data, generated through advanced artificial intelligence models, are gaining traction in healthcare research, particularly in high-stakes fields such as haematology and oncology. By replicating statistical properties, intervariable relationships and behaviours of real-world data, synthetic data sets can serve as valuable supplements or substitutes for conventional medical data. They offer the potential to overcome barriers to data access and sharing, democratize scientific discovery, and reduce the costs and failure rates of clinical trials. However, the lack of standardization in training data selection, model evaluation, bias mitigation, privacy preservation and quality assurance remain major challenges, limiting their reliability and safe application. In this Review, we explore the role of synthetic data in cancer research and clinical trials, present real-world examples of their use, critically examine limitations and pitfalls, and propose best practices to enhance fidelity, validity, fairness and utility. Although synthetic data are not a 'silver bullet' for the challenges of clinical research, with rigorous validation and oversight, they have the potential to transform data sharing, scientific collaboration and clinical trial design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41720945What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.