SynthesisJournal of forensic sciences2026
Deep learning in image forgery: A systematic review for risk of bias (RoB).
Synthesis in Journal of forensic sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Image forgery (IF) is a critical issue that can lead to the misinterpretation of visual information. Conventional strategies for IF detection are primarily manual feature-based and therefore require further analysis. Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown a positive impact in the domain of IF. However, as this field is still emerging, the results may be susceptible to risk of bias (RoB). Therefore, a systematic review is needed to identify and quantify AI-related RoB. The PRISMA ("Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses") framework is used to select the 35 most relevant AI studies on IF, which are further analyzed. It is hypothesized that the mean score across various evaluation parameters of AI-based studies should exceed 80% to effectively prevent RoB. Selected studies are ranked using the AP (AI) Bias model (AtheroPoint, Roseville, USA). These rankings are then benchmarked against (i) the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and (ii) the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). Based on a ranking cutoff mean score of 2.4 out of 5, only 15 studies qualified. None of the three assessment methods met the predefined hypothesis for RoB estimation. Using the AP (AI) Bias, ROBINS-I, and PROBAST tools, only 47%, 7%, and 20% of studies were classified within the low- or moderate-bias categories, respectively, which is below the established cutoff of 50%. Furthermore, only 27% of the studies were common across all three RoB assessment methods. Further, five recommendations are provided to improve RoB.
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.