Integrity Review: Prognostic value of Musashi 2 (MSI2) in cancer patients — A systematic review and meta-analysis (Frontiers in Oncology, 2022)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report assesses the Frontiers in Oncology meta-analysis by Jiang et al. (DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.969632) examining the prognostic role of MSI2 in cancer patients. Verdict: No substantive integrity concerns identified; the paper is assessed as clean within the limits of automated checks. The authors aggregated 21 studies with a total of 2640 patients, and internal arithmetic reconciles exactly across the primary tables (solid tumours 1547 + haematological 1093 = 2640; IHC 1538 + qRT-PCR 1102 = 2640; large-sample 1536 + small-sample 1104 = 2640). The figures are standard PRISMA-style flow diagrams, forest plots, sensitivity plots, and funnel plots generated by statistical software; no experimental images are reused or manipulated. Heterogeneity-model triggers in Table 2 appear consistent with the Methods rule (I² > 50% or P < 0.05 ⇒ random-effects model), and the literature search cutoff (April 2022) precedes submission (June 2022) and acceptance (November 2022) in a normal timeline. Limitations: this review covers image-reuse, arithmetic consistency, statistical/citation coherence, and timeline logic only; it cannot detect data fabrication within the primary studies or subjective analytic choices. Final determination should rely on institutional investigation.

Verdict

No integrity issues detected. The paper passes the automated checks applied (image reuse, arithmetic consistency, statistical/citation coherence, and publication timeline). Confidence is moderate-to-high for the categories examined; checks do not extend to potential fraud within the primary studies aggregated by the meta-analysis.

Key findings

All included figures (Figure 1–5) are standard meta-analytic outputs (PRISMA flow diagram, forest plots, sensitivity plots, funnel plots) and contain no experimental imagery subject to manipulation analysis.
Reported total cohort size (N = 2640) matches the sum of per-study sample sizes in Table 1.
All reported subgroup partitions sum exactly to 2640 (solid vs haematological; IHC vs qRT-PCR; large-sample vs small-sample).
Subgroup literature assignments in Table 2 are internally consistent with the disease categories listed in Table 1 (e.g., CRC subgroup correctly contains 4 CRC studies).
Application of random-effects (R) vs fixed-effects models in Table 2 is consistent with the Methods-stated trigger (I² > 50% or P < 0.05).
Literature search cutoff (through April 2022) and submission/acceptance dates (submitted 21 June 2022; accepted 2 November 2022) form a logical chronological sequence; inclusion of 2022 publications confirms an active search.

Evidence highlights

DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.969632
Authors: Lin Jiang, Shanshan Xue, Jie Xu, Xiaoyang Fu, Jing Wei, Chuanmeng Zhang
Journal: Frontiers in Oncology, 2022
21 studies / 2640 patients (exact match between Table 1 sum and Results text)
Subgroup arithmetic sums: 1547 + 1093 = 2640; 1538 + 1102 = 2640; 1536 + 1104 = 2640
Table 2 model selection: OS overall and qRT-PCR subgroup shown without random-effects flag; Multivariate and AML subgroups flagged as random-effects (R), consistent with stated heterogeneity rule

Notes

Scope of this review is limited to image reuse, internal arithmetic self-consistency, citation-to-subgroup mapping, statistical-model triggers, and publication timeline. It does not re-extract or re-analyse the primary studies, and cannot exclude fraud occurring in those underlying sources.
A formal institutional investigation would be required for any definitive misconduct finding; this report is an automated integrity screen, not an adjudication.