Geng Integrity Report: Review of MRI Applications in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Wilson's Disease

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

Verdict: Cleared (No academic misconduct detected). This paper, titled "MRI在威尔逊病诊断及预后中的应用综述" (DOI: 10.19745/j.1003-8868.2021151), authored by Wu Yutong, Hu Sheng, and Kan Hongxing, published in 医疗卫生装备 in 2021, is a narrative literature review. Because it is a review article, it generates no original experimental data or figures, so most image-duplication and data-fabrication checks are inapplicable. The five cited figures are properly attributed to original sources (e.g., references [6], [14-15], [36], [39]). No textual or visual anomalies suggestive of plagiarism, image reuse, splicing, or statistical manipulation were identified. Confidence: moderate, limited by absence of raw pixel-level image files and by reliance on figure caption verification. The reviewer recommends only a standard text-similarity check as a follow-up.

Verdict

Cleared. No indicators of academic misconduct identified.

Key findings

Article type mismatch with fraud heuristics: The paper is a literature review summarizing fMRI, DTI, and conventional MRI findings in Wilson's disease; it does not produce original experimental data or figures.
Proper figure attribution: All five figures are explicitly cited to external sources (e.g., Figure 1 → reference [6]; Figure 2 → references [14-15]); no orphan or unattributed images detected in the textual record.
No data-fabrication triggers: Quantitative claims (accuracy rates, abnormality proportions) are attributed to cited primary studies (e.g., Das et al. [36], Wang et al. [39]), not generated by this paper.
No image reuse or splicing indicators within verifiable scope: Caption-to-text correspondence (e.g., T2WI hyperintensity descriptions) appears consistent.
Detection scope limited: Without raw image files, pixel-level noise/PS-trace analysis was not performed.

Evidence highlights

DOI: 10.19745/j.1003-8868.2021151
Year: 2021
Journal: 医疗卫生装备 (Chinese Medical Equipment Journal)
Figures 1–5 each carry explicit source references in their captions.
All numeric results cited in the review trace back to referenced primary literature.

Notes

Recommended follow-up: routine text-similarity check via CNKI/Wanfang to rule out paraphrased plagiarism; no journal notification warranted based on current evidence.
Confidence: moderate. Limitations include absence of pixel-level image analysis and reliance on textual figure captions rather than original image files.
This automated assessment is advisory and does not constitute an institutional finding.