{"title":"Challenges of using AI-based synthetic data in health economics and outcomes research.","authors":"Arindam Saha, Zongliang Yue, Surachat Ngorsuraches","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2026.2691184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The growing demand for artificial intelligence (AI)-generated synthetic data (SD) in health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) offers both opportunities and risks. As SD might be used in the near future to inform drug pricing, reimbursement, and policy decisions, a rigorous evaluation of its associated challenges is essential.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>This non-systematic narrative review provides a conceptual overview of the generation and application of SD in HEOR, based on targeted searches of PubMed and Google Scholar with priority given to the publications from 2019 onwards. We then identified four interconnected challenges: bias as a foundational upstream driver, the privacy-utility trade-off, the absence of standardized human-in-the-loop evaluation, and underdeveloped regulatory and governance frameworks.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>The use of SD might offer opportunities to improve data accessibility; however, its adoption as standalone evidence in healthcare decisions is constrained by the absence of HEOR-specific validation standards, equity-centered evaluation metrics, and regulatory guidance. A structured hybrid ecosystem that integrates SD with real-world evidence, supported by coordinated regulatory frameworks and equity impact assessments, will be the most responsible pathway toward meaningful adoption in HEOR.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"567-576"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2026.2691184","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: The growing demand for artificial intelligence (AI)-generated synthetic data (SD) in health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) offers both opportunities and risks. As SD might be used in the near future to inform drug pricing, reimbursement, and policy decisions, a rigorous evaluation of its associated challenges is essential.
Areas covered: This non-systematic narrative review provides a conceptual overview of the generation and application of SD in HEOR, based on targeted searches of PubMed and Google Scholar with priority given to the publications from 2019 onwards. We then identified four interconnected challenges: bias as a foundational upstream driver, the privacy-utility trade-off, the absence of standardized human-in-the-loop evaluation, and underdeveloped regulatory and governance frameworks.
Expert opinion: The use of SD might offer opportunities to improve data accessibility; however, its adoption as standalone evidence in healthcare decisions is constrained by the absence of HEOR-specific validation standards, equity-centered evaluation metrics, and regulatory guidance. A structured hybrid ecosystem that integrates SD with real-world evidence, supported by coordinated regulatory frameworks and equity impact assessments, will be the most responsible pathway toward meaningful adoption in HEOR.
期刊介绍:
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review.
The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.