Academic Fraud Investigation Report — "Neuronal Sensitization Drives Bone Regeneration via Energy Metabolism and BMP2‐ErbB1 Signaling" (Adv. Funct. Mater., DOI: 10.1002/adfm.76607)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This investigation concludes, with high confidence, that the paper contains multiple severe indicators of data fabrication and methodological inconsistency, supporting a verdict of substantiated academic misconduct. Four major findings are reported. First, an arithmetic impossibility: the formulation provides 4 mg BMP2 per 1 g solid, and at a 0.2 g/mL extraction ratio the absolute maximum releasable concentration is ~800,000 µg/L, yet the authors claim a daily release below 10 µg/L, implying a release fraction under 0.00125% over a multi-week PLGA/cement degradation window, which is physically implausible. Second, molecular docking scores in Table 1 are internally inconsistent: ZDOCK scores normally fall between ~1000–3000, but ErbB1 is listed at 13553.6, an order of magnitude above all other entries, while ErbB1 and ErbB2 share an identical binding energy of −17.7 kcal/mol, suggestive of copy-paste fabrication. Third, Reference 23 cites Neural Regeneration Research volume 21 (2025) pages 3933–3942; the journal is monthly (≤~1500 pages/year) and would be on volume 20 in 2025, consistent with an AI-hallucinated citation. Fourth, Section 5.8 misattributes a PerkinElmer PinAAcle 900T (a US-made AAS instrument) to Germany as an ICP-OES. Limitations: findings rely on the manuscript text and tables; independent verification of raw release data and docking logs is required.

Verdict

🔴 Substantiated — Multiple severe indicators of data fabrication and methodological error identified, pending institutional verification of raw data.

Key findings

Impossible BMP2 release arithmetic: Formulation (4 mg BMP2 / 1 g solid) and extraction ratio (0.2 g/mL) yield a theoretical maximum concentration of ~800,000 µg/L, contradicting the claimed daily release of <10 µg/L.
Anomalous molecular docking scores: ErbB1 ZDOCK score of 13553.6 is roughly 10× higher than the other receptors (1528.46–1967.40); ErbB1 and ErbB2 share an identical binding energy of −17.7 kcal/mol.
Likely hallucinated reference: Ref. 23 cites *Neural Regeneration Research* 21 (2025): 3933–3942, inconsistent with a monthly journal's annual page count and 2025 volume numbering (should be vol. 20).
Instrument misattribution: PerkinElmer PinAAcle 900T is described as a German ICP-OES, but PerkinElmer is US-based and the PinAAcle 900T is an AAS model.

Evidence highlights

Table 2 / Section 5.8 / Section 2.1 / Conclusion: formulation math yields 0.8 mg BMP2 in 0.2 g powder → 1 mL medium → 800 µg/mL (800,000 µg/L) upper bound; Figure 2F and Conclusion state release "converged to below 10 µg·L⁻¹."
Table 1 ZDOCK scores: BMPR1A 1528.46; BMPR1B 1967.40; BMPR2 1601.76; ErbB2 1937.10; ErbB1 13553.6; binding energies for ErbB1 and ErbB2 both −17.7 kcal/mol.
Reference 23: "H. Yan, et al., ... *Neural Regeneration Research* 21 (2025): 3933–3942."
Section 5.8: "ICP-OES, PerkinElmer PinAAcle 900T, Germany."
DOI: 10.1002/adfm.76607

Notes

Confidence is high for findings 1, 2, and 3 based on reproducible internal inconsistencies; finding 4 is a moderate-severity contextual anomaly.
Limitations: raw HPLC release data, docking log files, and editorial source files were not independently accessed; final adjudication requires publisher/institutional investigation.
Recommended actions include requesting HPLC spectra, raw ZDOCK outputs, and PDB files from the authors, and filing a PubPeer post and editorial inquiry highlighting the BMP2 arithmetic and reference irregularities.