Diatomic Mn/Ca Nanozymes with Jaw Vascular Unit Mimicry for Triple-Enzyme Synergistic Therapy of Osteoradionecrosis - Integrity Review Report (DOI: 10.1002/adma.202517968)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This integrity review of Chen et al. (2025), published in Advanced Materials (DOI: 10.1002/adma.202517968), returns a verdict of 'questionable but unverified' (yellow status). Two concerns remain after rigorous re-examination. First, Figure 6a and 6b (Live/Dead dual-stained fluorescence images of macrophages and HBMSCs across treatment groups including Control, Mn-CaDSN, and NBP@Mn-CaDSN@HM) show visually similar background textures and red-fluorescence distributions that appear biologically implausible across independent treatment conditions. Second, Figure 2m (NBP release curve) and Figures 4c/4g (enzyme kinetic curves) display suspiciously smooth mathematical fits with minimal residuals and unusually uniform error bars. A third allegation (cross-species sequencing) was removed after the claim could not be substantiated against the provided text. All remaining findings rely on visual inference and lack pixel-level or raw-data confirmation. Confidence is therefore low; no definitive misconduct is established, but external verification is warranted.

Verdict

🟡 Questionable / Unverified. Two visual concerns remain on record, but both lack pixel-level or raw-data confirmation. No definitive misconduct is established at this stage.

Key findings

Figure 6 (Live/Dead fluorescence) — suspected image reuse or near-duplication: Figure 6a (macrophages) and 6b (HBMSCs) across groups (Control, Mn-CaDSN, NBP@Mn-CaDSN@HM) reportedly show highly consistent background texture and red-fluorescence distribution that would be biologically implausible across independent treatments.
Overly smooth data fits (Figure 2m, 4c, 4g): NBP release kinetics and dual-enzyme kinetic curves (with reported Vmax parameters) appear near-perfectly fitted, with unusually small and uniform error bars lacking the random scatter typical of in vitro biochemical assays.
Original third allegation (cross-species sequencing) removed: The claim that human cells were subjected to mouse-genome sequencing could not be located in the provided paper text and was therefore dropped during re-examination.

Evidence highlights

DOI: 10.1002/adma.202517968 (Advanced Materials, 2025).
Paper contains explicit descriptions of Figure 6a/6b Live/Dead dual staining for macrophages and HBMSCs, and reports Vmax-related kinetic parameters consistent with Figures 4c/4g.
No pixel-level duplication analysis, ELA (Error Level Analysis), or raw numerical data was available to confirm either concern.
No textual basis was found for the removed cross-species sequencing allegation.

Notes

All remaining concerns are visual/inferential; without original unmodified images or raw datasets they cannot be elevated to confirmed misconduct.
Recommended next steps: ImageJ/Forensic-Tool ELA on Figure 6; release of original high-resolution fluorescence micrographs and underlying numerical data; community discussion on PubPeer.
This report is AI-assisted and intended for academic-discussion purposes only; final determinations of academic misconduct must be made by qualified institutions.
Possible false positives and false negatives are acknowledged.