SynTrustBench: An Evidence-Gated and Executable Benchmark for Trustworthiness Claims in Synthetic Clinical Data
Hayder, N. S.; Bukhari, S. A. C.
Show abstract
Synthetic clinical data are increasingly used for healthcare machine-learning development, model validation, data sharing, and predeployment testing, yet such data often claim to be trustworthy after passing a limited collection of realism tests. A synthetic dataset may indeed claim statistical similarity while leaking training membership, erasing rare subgroups, failing on held-out real patients, or lacking sufficient artifacts for reproduction. We introduce SynTrustBench, an evidence-gated and executable benchmark for evaluating trustworthiness claims across five non-compensable dimensions: fidelity, clinical utility/validity, privacy, equity, and robustness/generalization. Its Evidence Assessment component audits published reports and produces a five-element Evidence Maturity Profile (EMP) together with a separate evaluability gate. Its executable structured-tabular protocol accepts frozen real training data, held-out real test data, a synthetic table, and a declarative configuration; computes dimension-specific metrics and uncertainty; and produces subgroup results, failure flags, benchmark cards, and provenance manifests. In a frozen pilot audit of 30 reports, 17 of 30 quantitatively evaluated privacy, 2 of 30 documented a formal privacy guarantee to the audit threshold, 2 of 30 evaluated equity, 12 of 30 evaluated robustness, and only 4 of 30 passed the evaluability gate. The executable implementation operationalizes the same dimensions through distribution and dependency checks, frozen train-on-real/test-on-real (TRTR) and train-on-synthetic/test-on-real (TSTR) utility, empirical privacy attacks, subgroup analysis, perturbation testing, and a controlled failure-injection harness. SynTrustBench does not certify clinical safety or collapse trustworthiness into a single score. Instead, it provides an inspectable predeployment contract for identifying what was evaluated, what failed, what remains unknown, and whether evidence is sufficiently complete and reproducible for comparison or downstream healthcare AI use.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.