Fabrication and Copy-Paste Errors in a Network Meta-Analysis of Second-Line Immunotherapy for NSCLC (Precision Medication, 2026)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report compiles five independent integrity findings against Yunfeng Zhao et al., DOI 10.1016/j.prmedi.2026.100092, published in Precision Medication. The paper, a network meta-analysis and pharmacoeconomic evaluation of second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors versus docetaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China, is judged severely compromised. Key issues: (1) the acknowledged funding project is explicitly titled for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, not NSCLC, indicating copy-paste from an unrelated grant; (2) reference 5 cited to support suboptimal chemotherapy in NSCLC is a review of esophageal cancer treatment; (3) Table 4 contains a nonsensical value (-16756774.8121) inconsistent with the surrounding QALY/cost magnitudes and formatting artifacts such as 'Pembrolizumab /'; (4) the reported INMB for Tislelizumab (120.38 USD) is arithmetically incompatible with the paper's own inputs under WTP = 41,859 USD/QALY; (5) the exchange rate is given to nine decimal places (7.251706583) and an implausible pembrolizumab 650 mg dose is listed. Confidence is high for findings 1, 2, 4 and 5 based on verbatim text; confidence for finding 3 is moderate pending verification of the raw table in the published PDF.

Verdict

Serious integrity concerns, likely constituting fabrication and/or gross sloppiness. The paper cannot be relied upon for its economic conclusions.

Key findings

Mismatched funding disclosure: Acknowledgement cites "Hebei Province Medical Science Research Project Plan in 2025. No. 20250149 (Project Name: Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of PD-1 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Advanced or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma)", a project on esophageal cancer rather than the NSCLC topic of the paper.
Topic-inappropriate citation: Reference 5, used to claim that "chemotherapy has been the standard second-line treatment; however, outcomes remain suboptimal", is Watanabe M et al., *Surg Today* 2020, "Recent progress in multidisciplinary treatment for patients with esophageal cancer".
Implausible table values: Table 4 contains -16756774.8121 alongside QALY/cost values in the ten-thousands range, plus formatting residue such as "Pembrolizumab /".
INMB arithmetic inconsistency: With WTP = 41,859 USD/QALY, ΔQALY = 0.513 and ΔCost = 7,030.85 USD for Tislelizumab vs Docetaxel, the standard INMB = 41,859 × 0.513 − 7,030.85 = 14,442.82 USD, not the reported 120.38 USD.
Implausible precision and dosing: Exchange rate given as 7.251706583; pembrolizumab dose listed as 130 mg or 650 mg, inconsistent with standard regimens.

Evidence highlights

Funding statement page 5 (verbatim): "Hebei Province Medical Science Research Project Plan in 2025. No. 20250149 (Project Name: Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of PD-1 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Advanced or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma)".
Reference list entry 5: "Watanabe M, Otake R, Kozuki R, et al. Recent progress in multidisciplinary treatment for patients with esophageal cancer[J]. Surg Today. 2020".
Table 4 excerpts including Nivolumab 61269.61 0.9394 160444.6392 -181024.0538 and the pembrolizumab row containing -16756774.8121.
Method statement: "converted using the China Consumer Price Index and the exchange rate of 1 dollar equal to RMB 7.251706583" and "pembrolizumab at either 130 mg or 650 mg on a three-week schedule".
Stated WTP threshold: 41,859 USD per QALY; Tislelizumab cost 21,403.22 USD, QALY 1.160; Docetaxel cost 14,372.37 USD, QALY 0.647.
DOI: 10.1016/j.prmedi.2026.100092.

Notes

The INMB recomputation assumes the standard formula INMB = WTP × ΔQALY − ΔCost and a one-way comparison between Tislelizumab and Docetaxel; the paper does not state its comparator order unambiguously, but the numerical mismatch is large enough (≈14,300 USD deviation) to survive reasonable alternative sign conventions. Table 4 transcription is from an automated PDF extract and should be reverified against the publisher's version. The programmatic extraction caveat noted in the original report for the suboptimal-chemotherapy sentence is corroborated here only at the level of supporting citation; human verification of the exact wording in the publisher PDF is recommended. Findings are based on the cited manuscript and have not been independently verified against raw author data.