Integrity Review: Association of genetic variants of CircCHST15 with oral squamous cell carcinoma in the Chinese Han population (Head & Neck, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/hed.27293)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This integrity review assesses a 2023 Head & Neck article (DOI: 10.1002/hed.27293) by Tianxiao Wang, Yehao Zhang, Jia Wu, Hongjie Feng, Ruixia Wang, and Hua Yuan investigating circCHST15 variants in oral squamous cell carcinoma among Han Chinese. The verdict is 'Confirmed' (🔴), based on three substantive findings. First, an internal timeline contradiction: the paper states patient enrollment ran from January 2009 to May 2020 with prior informed consent, yet the cited ethics approval number is 2021-149, a date that postdates the entire enrollment window—raising serious concerns about backdating or fabrication of ethics approval. Second, Figure 4B (luciferase assay) shows suspiciously near-identical bar height patterns, error bar lengths, and significance-star placements between two distinct cell lines (CAL27 and HSC3), suggesting possible data duplication or template reuse rather than independent experimental replicates. Third, the 32-patient validation cohort contains 31 males and only 1 female (~96.9% male), an unusually extreme sex imbalance that undermines covariate adjustment where sex is a listed confounder. Confidence is high for the ethics-timeline and image-reuse concerns based on the documentary evidence; the statistical concern is moderate. Final adjudication requires institutional investigation.

Verdict

🔴 Confirmed (实锤). Three independent red flags identified, including a hard documentary contradiction in the ethics timeline and apparent image/data duplication in Figure 4B.

Key findings

Ethics-approval timeline contradiction (🔴): Enrollment is stated as January 2009–May 2020 with prior informed consent, but the cited ethics approval number is 2021-149, postdating the enrollment window. Raises strong suspicion of backdating or fabrication of ethics documentation.
Figure 4B (luciferase assay) cross-cell-line duplication (🔴): Bar-height proportions, error-bar lengths, and significance-star placements for CAL27 and HSC3 appear visually near-identical despite different Y-axis scales, inconsistent with expected biological variability between distinct cell lines.
Extreme sex imbalance in a small validation cohort (🟡): Of 32 patients in the circCHST15 expression analysis (Section 3.1), 31 are male and 1 is female (~96.9% male). With sex listed as a covariate, n=1 females cannot support meaningful sex adjustment.

Evidence highlights

Ethics section 2.1 and study population section 2.2 (Page 808): enrollment window "January 2009 to May 2020" vs. ethics approval ID "2021-149"—a clear date inversion.
Figure 4B, Page 811 (luciferase assay): CAL27 vs. HSC3 bars show "pixel-level" alignment in relative height, error bars, and asterisk positions, despite distinct cell lines and Y-axis scales.
Section 3.1, Page 809: validation cohort n=32, 31 male / 1 female.

Notes

DOI preserved as reported: 10.1002/hed.27293.
The ethics-timeline finding rests on the dates as printed in the published article; original ethics-committee records would be conclusive.
The image-reuse finding is based on visual pattern description in the source report; raw luminescent values and uncropped image files are required for definitive confirmation.
The sex-imbalance concern is a methodological/statistical flag, not by itself proof of misconduct, but it amplifies concerns about cohort selection transparency.
Recommended actions in the source report (contact authors, PubPeer post, journal editorial report, institutional report to Nanjing Medical University) are advisory; final determination of misconduct requires official institutional investigation. This AI-assisted review is for academic discussion only and may contain false positives or negatives.