Problematic articles in preclinical literature on microvascular injury after acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: Microvascular injury (MVI) remains an important unmet therapeutic target in acute myocardial infarction. Progress in the field depends heavily on preclinical studies aimed at understanding the mechanisms underlying MVI and evaluating novel therapeutic strategies. Such studies are often complex and rely extensively on image-based data, which may be vulnerable to inappropriate image reuse or manipulation. Because concerns regarding research integrity can undermine confidence in the scientific evidence base, we sought to determine the prevalence of problematic articles in the preclinical MVI literature using mouse, rat, and pig models of myocardial ischemia-reperfusion. METHODS: After screening for eligibility, we used the AI-powered software tool Imagetwin to systematically assess all included articles for inappropriate image duplication and manipulation. All findings were confirmed by the authors. We also noted all other serious issues encountered by chance. RESULTS: We assessed 201 articles, of which 57 (28.4%) were deemed problematic: 46 articles for image-related concerns and 11 articles for data-related concerns. Corresponding authors of problematic articles were most commonly affiliated with institutes in China (38 articles, 66.7%). The three publishers with the highest absolute number of problematic articles were Elsevier (11 articles), Springer, and Wiley (both 9 articles). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of problematic articles in the preclinical MVI literature using mouse, rat, and pig models of myocardial ischemia-reperfusion was 28.4%. Continued vigilance by publishers, reviewers, and readers is important to maintain the integrity and reliability of the scientific record.