Forensic Analysis of Synthetically Generated Western Blot Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread diffusion of synthetically generated content is a serious threat that needs urgent countermeasures. As a matter of fact, the generation of synthetic content is not restricted to multimedia data like videos, photographs or audio sequences, but covers a significantly vast area that can include biological images as well, such as western blot and microscopic images. In this paper, we focus on the detection of synthetically generated western blot images. These images are largely explored in the biomedical literature and it has been already shown they can be easily counterfeited with few hopes to spot manipulations by visual inspection or by using standard forensics detectors. To overcome the absence of publicly available data for this task, we create a new dataset comprising more than 14K original western blot images and 24K synthetic western blot images, generated using four different state-of-the-art generation methods.We investigate different strategies to detect synthetic western blots, exploring binary classification methods as well as one-class detectors. In both scenarios, we never exploit synthetic western blot images at training stage. The achieved results show that synthetically generated western blot images can be spot with good accuracy, even though the exploited detectors are not optimized over synthetic versions of these scientific images. We also test the robustness of the developed detectors against post-processing operations commonly performed on scientific images, showing that we can be robust to JPEG compression and that some generative models are easily recognizable, despite the application of editing might alter the artifacts they leave.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".