Generative AI for synthetic data across multiple medical modalities: A systematic review of recent developments and...

This paper presents a comprehensive systematic review of generative models (GANs, VAEs, DMs, and LLMs) used to synthesize various medical data types, including imaging (dermoscopic, mammographic, ultrasound, CT, MRI, and X-ray), text, time-series, and tabular data (EHR). Unlike previous narrowly focused reviews, our study encompasses a broad array of medical data modalities and explores various generative models. Our aim is to offer insights into their current and future applications in medical research, particularly in the context of synthesis applications, generation techniques, and evaluation methods, as well as providing a GitHub repository as a dynamic resource for ongoing collaboration and innovation. Our search strategy queries databases such as Scopus, PubMed, and ArXiv, focusing on recent works from January 2021 to November 2023, excluding reviews and perspectives. This period emphasizes recent advancements beyond GANs, which have been extensively covered in previous reviews. The survey also emphasizes the aspect of conditional generation, which is not focused on in similar work. Key contributions include a broad, multi-modality scope that identifies cross-modality insights and opportunities unavailable in single-modality surveys. While core generative techniques are transferable, we find that synthesis methods often lack sufficient integration of patient-specific context, clinical knowledge, and modality-specific requirements tailored to the unique characteristics of medical data. Conditional models leveraging textual conditioning and multimodal synthesis remain underexplored but offer promising directions for innovation. Our findings are structured around three themes: (1) Synthesis applications, highlighting clinically valid synthesis applications and significant gaps in using synthetic data beyond augmentation, such as for validation and evaluation; (2) Generation techniques, identifying gaps in personalization and cross-modality innovation; and (3) Evaluation methods, revealing the absence of standardized benchmarks, the need for large-scale validation, and the importance of privacy-aware, clinically relevant evaluation frameworks. These findings emphasize the need for benchmarking and comparative studies to promote openness and collaboration.