Imagetwin查重发现，新乡市中心医院神经内科论文与多篇论文共享流式细胞术数据，待深度核查

质疑一：图2C：图像的某些部分似乎已被克隆。

Figure 2C: There are parts of the image which appear to have been cloned. I've added the coloured rectangles to show where I mean. Would the authors please check and comment? Are there any better quality images available?

Imagetwin全网查(如需要查重服务，请联系文末客服微信)

质疑二：这篇论文是共享相同流式细胞仪数据的多篇论文之一。我在下面添加了一个图表来说明我的意思。这些图的形式多种多样，在某些情况下，可能对相同的数据进行了不同的门控分析，因此并非所有标有彩色矩形的图乍一看都很相似，也许有些部分是事后在 photoshop（或类似软件）中克隆的。我添加了一些彩色矩形，以显示曲线图比预期更相似的地方，为了确认，我建议仔细对比高质量图像，以识别数据点的独特排列。ImageTwin.ai对识别这些点有很大帮助。

This paper is one of a number of papers that share the same flow cytometry data. I've added a diagram below to show what I mean. The plots have various forms, in some cases it seems possible that the same data was analysed with different gating, so not all the plots marked with coloured rectangles appear similar at first glance, perhaps some parts were cloned in photoshop (or similar) after the fact. I've added some coloured rectangles to show where the plots are more similar than expected, for confirmation I recommend carefully comparing high quality images against each other to identify the unique constellations of data points. ImageTwin.ai is a great help in identifying these.

Would the authors please check and comment?

List of papers in the diagram:

10.3892/ol.2016.4827

10.1155/2017/8317913

10.2147/OTT.S124595

10.1177/1010428317711315

10.2147/OTT.S141008

10.1186/s13578-017-0178-y

10.1186/s40709-019-0102-1

10.2147/OTT.S172152

10.1007/s12032-015-0695-7

10.3349/ymj.2017.58.6.1092

10.1242/bio.024133

10.3892/br.2018.1084