Geng Report: "Platelet–neutrophil cooperation in cancer: mechanisms of metastatic niche formation and implications for prognostic stratification and therapy" (DOI: 10.1007/s13402-026-01178-6)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

Verdict: No misconduct detected (article found to be "clean"). The review examined a review article by Na Yang et al. published in Cellular Oncology and concluded that standard image- and statistics-based fraud checks are inapplicable because the manuscript contains no original experimental data, figures, or statistical results. The submission-to-acceptance timeline (received September 4, 2025; accepted February 7, 2026) is consistent with normal editorial flow, and citations to 2025 literature align with the writing period. Confidence is moderate: absence of original data removes the primary channels of fabrication/reuse detection, so the finding is an inability-to-assess rather than affirmative exoneration; falsification of cited studies or text-based issues cannot be ruled out by this scan.

Verdict

No evidence of academic fraud identified. The article is a literature review with no original experimental data, images, or statistical outputs; consequently, the principal image-reuse, image-tampering, raw-data fabrication, and statistical-irregularity checks could not be applied. The publication timeline and reference recency are internally consistent.

Key findings

The manuscript is a review article containing no author-generated experimental figures (e.g., Western blots, flow cytometry, microscopy) and no original statistical reporting (means ± SD, p-values).
Because no original data/figures are present:
Image-duplication detection (Geng "Form 1") and image-splicing/erasure detection ("Form 3") could not be executed.
Data-fabrication heuristics ("Form 2") and statistical-anomaly detection (last-digit regularity, tidy SDs, p-value distribution) ("Form 4") could not be executed.
Publication timeline: received 2025-09-04; accepted 2026-02-07. The interval is consistent with normal peer review.
Citations to recent literature, including statements referencing "Recent studies published in 2025," align with the manuscript's writing and acceptance window; no temporal paradox identified (checks referred to as "Form 6" in the source).

Evidence highlights

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-026-01178-6 — verified and preserved.
Received: 2025-09-04; Accepted: 2026-02-07 — internally consistent timeline.
No pixel-level image analyses performed (no experimental images present in source).
No statistical-anomaly metrics computed (no author-reported statistics present in source).

Notes

Scope limitation: this report flags absence of original data, not affirmative proof of integrity. Review articles can still contain plagiarism, citation manipulation, or misattributed claims, which were not within the executed checks.
All quantitative evidence from the original Chinese report is reproduced verbatim above; no additional findings have been introduced.