The growing adoption of synthetic data in healthcare is driven by privacy concerns, limited access to real-world data, and the high cost of annotation. This work explores the use of synthetic Prolonged Exposure (PE) therapeutic conversations for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a scalable alternative for training and evaluating clinical models. We systematically compare real and synthetic dialogues using linguistic, structural, and protocol-specific metrics, including turn-taking patterns and treatment fidelity. We also introduce and evaluate PE-specific metrics derived from linguistic analysis and semantic modeling, offering a novel framework for assessing clinical fidelity beyond surface fluency. Our findings show that although synthetic data holds promise for mitigating data scarcity and protecting patient privacy, it can struggle to capture the subtle dynamics of therapeutic interactions. Synthetic therapy dialogues closely match structural features of real-world conversations (e.g., speaker switch ratio: 0.98 vs. 0.99); however, they may not adequately reflect key fidelity markers (e.g., distress monitoring). We highlight gaps in existing evaluation frameworks and advocate for fidelity-aware metrics that go beyond surface fluency to uncover clinically significant failures. Our findings clarify where synthetic data can effectively complement real-world datasets -- and where critical limitations remain.
View on arXiv@article{bn2025_2504.21800,
title={ How Real Are Synthetic Therapy Conversations? Evaluating Fidelity in Prolonged Exposure Dialogues },
author={ Suhas BN and Dominik Mattioli and Saeed Abdullah and Rosa I. Arriaga and Chris W. Wiese and Andrew M. Sherrill },
journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21800},
year={ 2025 }
}