Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39145198›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024

Detecting image manipulation with ELA-CNN integration: a powerful framework for authenticity verification.

Ahmad M Nagm, Mona M Moussa, Rasha Shoitan, Ahmed Ali, Mohamed Mashhour, Ahmed S Salama, Hamada I AbdulWakel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ahmad M NagmDepartment of Computer Engineering and Electronics, Cairo Higher Institute for Engineering, Computer Science and Management, Cairo, Egypt.
Mona M MoussaComputer and Systems Department, Electronics Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt.
Rasha ShoitanComputer and Systems Department, Electronics Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed AliDepartment of Computer Science, College of Computer Engineering and Sciences, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0003-2775-4104
Mohamed MashhourDepartment of Computer Engineering and Electronics, Cairo Higher Institute for Engineering, Computer Science and Management, Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed S SalamaDepartment of Computer Engineering and Electronics, Cairo Higher Institute for Engineering, Computer Science and Management, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-1066-8261
Hamada I AbdulWakelComputer Science Department, Faculty of Computers and Information, Minia University, Minia, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-6474-5488

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The exponential progress of image editing software has contributed to a rapid rise in the production of fake images. Consequently, various techniques and approaches have been developed to detect manipulated images. These methods aim to discern between genuine and altered images, effectively combating the proliferation of deceptive visual content. However, additional advancements are necessary to enhance their accuracy and precision. Therefore, this research proposes an image forgery algorithm that integrates error level analysis (ELA) and a convolutional neural network (CNN) to detect the manipulation. The system primarily focuses on detecting copy-move and splicing forgeries in images. The input image is fed to the ELA algorithm to identify regions within the image that have different compression levels. Afterward, the created ELA images are used as input to train the proposed CNN model. The CNN model is constructed from two consecutive convolution layers, followed by one max pooling layer and two dense layers. Two dropout layers are inserted between the layers to improve model generalization. The experiments are applied to the CASIA 2 dataset, and the simulation results show that the proposed algorithm demonstrates remarkable performance metrics, including a training accuracy of 99.05%, testing accuracy of 94.14%, precision of 94.1%, and recall of 94.07%. Notably, it outperforms state-of-the-art techniques in both accuracy and precision.

Indexed as

CNNCopy-moveELAForgeryImage splicingTampering

Identifiers

PMID39145198
PMCPMC11323046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.