ReviewForensic science international. Synergy2026
Interpol review of detection of AI-generated image and video deepfakes, 2022-2025.
Review in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Interpol review of forensic image and video analysis, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, there has been tremendous progress in the generation of deepfakes and synthetic media. In this systematic review, we will, from a forensic perspective, discuss the latest developments in AI generation of deepfake images and videos and methods for detecting them. We analyzed more than 400 studies published between 2022 and 2025, specifically addressing the generation and detection of AI-generated deepfakes as opposed to manipulation of existing media. We provide an overview of the developments in various generative architectures such as GANs, diffusion models, and autoregressive models, highlighting progress in visual fidelity, user control, content consistency, and computational efficiency. In addition, we outline the most common designs of detection methods, looking at various types of features that are used for detection. We conclude that innovations are mainly centered on addressing the challenges of generalizability to unseen generators and robustness against common perturbations and adversarial attacks. However, the inconsistent use of the evaluation datasets makes it difficult to compare the methods. Our review has identified several directions for future research, such as making methods more directly applicable to forensic practice by incorporating forensically relevant benchmark datasets, paying more attention to explainability, and embedding detection methods in an evidence evaluation framework.
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.