Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41592134›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Exploring techniques to distinguish between real images and those generated using stable diffusion XL.

Benjamin Sanders, David Morrison, David Harris-Birtill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Benjamin SandersSchool of Computer Science, The University of St. Andrews, North Haugh, St. Andrews, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1744-5143
David MorrisonSchool of Computer Science, The University of St. Andrews, North Haugh, St. Andrews, United Kingdom.
David Harris-BirtillSchool of Computer Science, The University of St. Andrews, North Haugh, St. Andrews, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent development of text-to-image diffusion models has allowed us to quickly generate realistic images from textual prompts. Despite enabling innovation in particular domains, concerns have been raised over the prospect of malicious users posing synthetic images as genuine. To assess if it is possible to discern between real images and those generated using diffusion models, a novel convolutional neural network was built, trained and tested on a bespoke dataset formed of authentic images from the ImageNet dataset and corresponding synthetic images generated using Stable Diffusion XL: an open-source text-to-image diffusion model. With the public release of this dataset, it is currently the largest publicly accessible collection of images generated using Stable Diffusion XL, significantly contributing to future research in this area. The positive results from our experiment performing a binary classification of synthetic and real images demonstrate the effectiveness in detecting synthetic images, with up to 98.38% accuracy using a ResNet-18 baseline, and 97.24% with the proposed CNN.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedAlgorithmsConvolutional Neural NetworksHumansNeural Networks, Computer

Identifiers

PMID41592134
PMCPMC12844535

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.