ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
Image fraud in nuclear medicine research.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess nuclear medicine researchers' experiences and attitudes toward image fraud, as well as their perspectives on preventive measures.
methodsThis survey targeted corresponding authors who published in three nuclear medicine journals between 2021 and 2024. Participants were asked about their experiences related to medical image fraud, as well as their views on its prevalence, causes, and potential preventive measures.
resultsOf the 2,837 corresponding authors invited, 284 (10.0%) completed the survey. Most of the 284 respondents were mid-career European male MDs with over 10 years of research experience. While 91% reported never feeling pressured to falsify medical images, 13.7% admitted doing so in the past five years, and 38.7% had witnessed colleagues engaging in such practices. Common forms included cherry-picking, unauthorized image reuse, and misleading enhancements. In the past five years, 1.1% admitted using AI to falsify medical images, while 2.8% reported witnessing colleagues do so. No demographic factors were significantly associated with misconduct. Key drivers cited were publication pressure, competition, and aesthetic expectations. Respondents emphasized the need for greater transparency, oversight, and cultural change. Current safeguards were generally considered ineffective. Stricter policies, increased awareness, and AI tools were suggested as potential solutions.
conclusionsImage fraud in nuclear medicine research appears to be relatively prevalent. It is more frequently witnessed among other colleagues than self-reported by individual researchers. The findings highlight the need to fostering a culture of research integrity and for stronger preventive measures, including greater awareness, stricter journal policies, and improved control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.