DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17203193
title: Uncropped Film Scans and Analysis Data Addressing PubPeer Query on JNC 2009_Socodato et al.

description: In response to the comment flagging similarities in Figs 2, 3, and 5 (red and yellow rectangles), we retrieved the legacy uncropped films and ran a lane‑agnostic forensic pipeline on the full band regions (no lane selection). The PubPeer PDF page with the marked rectangles is available here for context. 

 

Llane‑agnostic, FDR‑controlled analysis.

We compared whole‑strip images using three independent metric families, each evaluated with permutation/KS tests and Benjamini–Hochberg FDR across families per pair:





Spectral distance of the radial power spectrum (phase‑randomized null) → p, q, z.




Cross‑duplication via dense tile descriptors (auto‑scaled tiles/stride) → p, q, z.




Stationarity via KS on residual‑variance maps (illumination/heteroscedasticity proxy) → p, q, D.

Decision rule (pre‑specified): a pair is flagged only if ≥2 families have q<0.05 and medium+ effect (|z|≥2 for spectral/cross‑dup; D≥0.2 for stationarity). Otherwise: inconclusive (i.e., not flagged for duplication).



 

Results for the rectangles highlighted on PubPeer.





Red rectangles — Fig. 2a vs Fig. 3a (pCREB): spectral q=0.743 (z=−0.696); cross‑dup q=0.704 (z=−0.060); stationarity q≈4.84×10⁻²⁴⁸, D=0.373 → decision: inconclusive.




Red rectangles — Fig. 2a vs Fig. 3a (pERK): spectral q=0.704 (z=−0.283); cross‑dup q=0.704 (z=−0.012); stationarity q≈9.36×10⁻³⁷, D=0.144 → decision: inconclusive.




Yellow rectangles — Fig. 3b vs Fig. 5a (pCREB): spectral q=0.557 (z=−0.198); cross‑dup q=0.557 (z=+0.088); stationarity q≈1.10×10⁻⁶¹, D=0.186 → decision: inconclusive.



Interpretation: the duplication‑focused families (spectral distance and cross‑duplication) are non‑significant after FDRfor all three comparisons; the stationarity family indicates differences in background/illumination (e.g., crease/gradient), which is consistent with different exposures, not re‑use.

 

Additional whole‑strip cross‑checks (no lanes).





3b pCREB vs 5a pCREB: SSIM (after global alignment) ≈ 0.62; phase‑correlation response ≈ 0.025; 0 geometric inliers on ORB+RANSAC — inconsistent with duplication.




2a vs 3a (pERK / pCREB): SSIM ≈ 0.54/0.45; phase‑correlation ≈ 0.060/0.049; negligible geometric consensus (0–13 inliers across hundreds of keypoints).

(All figures and metrics computed on the full band region without lane picking.)



Conclusion.

Across the red (2a↔3a pERK/pCREB) and yellow (3b↔5a pCREB) rectangles, a lane‑agnostic, FDR‑controlled analysis finds no evidence of panel re‑use. The only strong signals are stationarity differences, which reflect different background/illumination completely under normality given different/independent scanned films.
description: Additional independent forensic analysis

 State-Of-The-Art Calibrated Computer-Vision (CV) Workflow. For every allegation, we executed a state-of-the-art CV pipeline:



Aligned candidate bands/lanes with Euclidean ECC (rotation+translation; translation fallback).

Scored identity using six orthogonal metrics: normalized cross-correlation (NCC), structural similarity (SSIM; true SSIM when available, else a bounded 1−MSE proxy reported as SSIM/SSIM_proxy), edge-Hamming (Canny-XOR), ORB inlier ratio (RANSAC), densitometry profile correlation, and Laplacian residual correlation (micro-texture).

Calibrated the interpretation with non-match negatives (empirical mismatch distributions) and duplicate positives (lightly transformed copies). Duplicate controls define the “reuse-like” zone (typically NCC ≈ 0.99, SSIM ≈ 0.95 on our data).

Interpretation Criteria: Crucially, true duplication requires high similarity across all orthogonal metrics. If metrics diverge (e.g., high SSIM but low NCC, or significant edge mismatch), the images are unique, even if they appear morphologically similar.


Concern 1 — Fig. 2a vs Fig. 3a (pERK & pCREB)



pERK Results (2a↔3a, lanes 1 & 2):



Lane-1: NCC −0.244, SSIM 0.796, Edge 0.351.

Lane-2: NCC −0.105, SSIM 0.873, Edge 0.157.

Definitive non-matches (ORB≈0).



pCREB Results (2a↔3a, lanes 1 & 2):



Lane-1: NCC 0.425, SSIM 0.870, Edge 0.270.

Lane-2: NCC 0.950, SSIM 0.985, Edge 0.282.



Interpretation (pCREB Lane 2): Despite high SSIM/NCC after alignment, the significant edge mismatch persists (Edge 0.282), and ORB≈0. Combined with face-value differences in background/dust/edges on the raw scans, these metrics confirm non-identity. Percentiles show this is the “closest among mismatches,” not a duplication.

Artifacts: c1_perk_bundle.zip, c1_pcreb_bundle.zip


Concern 2 — Paper 1, pCREB Fig. 3b vs Fig. 5a (first three lanes)



Analysis: Pairwise comparison (L1–L3). (pCREB defaults: search window top 70%, band height ≈6%H).

Results (ECC-aligned, uncropped films):



3b-L1 ↔ 5a-L1: NCC −0.132, SSIM 0.912, Edge 0.157, Profile_r 0.137, Residual −0.014.

3b-L2 ↔ 5a-L2: NCC 0.447, SSIM 0.941, Edge 0.264, Profile_r 0.861, Residual −0.017.

3b-L3 ↔ 5a-L3: NCC 0.628, SSIM 0.960, Edge 0.188, Profile_r 0.751, Residual 0.081.


Interpretation: Despite SSIM values typical of well-registered blots, NCC remains drastically below duplicate controls (not approaching ≈0.99), edge-Hamming is non-trivial, and ORB inliers are absent. Each pair’s metrics fall within the non-match negative distributions; they are the closest among mismatches, not duplicates. The panels are independent films.

Artifacts: c2_pcreb_bundle.zip


 
description: CONDITIONS OF ACCESS AND USE

This dataset is distributed under a Restricted Access model. By requesting access, you agree to the following terms:

 

1. Access Eligibility



Access is granted exclusively to verifiable individuals for academic or editorial purposes (e.g., qualified researchers, journal editors, and reviewers).

Requests must be submitted using an institutional or professional email account.

Anonymous or unverifiable requests will be denied.


2. Permitted Use



The dataset may only be used for non-commercial, legitimate scientific research or data verification purposes.

Attribution is mandatory; the dataset DOI must be cited in any resulting use or publication.


3. Restrictions Consistent with the NonCommercial (NC) and NoDerivatives (ND) license clauses, the following are strictly prohibited:



Redistribution, sharing, or dissemination of the dataset, in whole or in part, to any third party.

Modification of the data or the creation of derivative datasets.

Transferring access credentials or data to unauthorized individuals.


4. Compliance and Accountability



Zenodo maintains a log of all access requests and approvals.

The user accepts full responsibility for compliance with these conditions.

Violation of these terms constitutes a breach of the license agreement and copyright. Breaches will be treated as misconduct and may be reported to the user’s institution, relevant journal editors, or funding bodies.