AI detectors are poor western blot classifiers: a study of accuracy and predictive values

The recent rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) capable of creating scientific images presents a challenge in the fight against academic fraud. This study evaluates the efficacy of three free web-based AI detectors in identifying AI-generated images of western blots, which is a very common technique in biology. We tested these detectors on AI-generated western blot images (<i>n</i> = 48, created using ChatGPT 4) and on authentic western blots (<i>n</i> = 48, from articles published before the rise of generative AI). Each detector returned a very different sensitivity (<i>Is It AI?</i>: 0.9583; <i>Hive Moderation</i>: 0.1875; and <i>Illuminarty</i>: 0.7083) and specificity (<i>Is It AI?</i>: 0.5417; <i>Hive Moderation</i>: 0.8750; and <i>Illuminarty</i>: 0.4167), and the predicted positive predictive value (PPV) for each was low. This suggests significant challenges in confidently determining image authenticity based solely on the current free AI detectors. Reducing the size of western blots reduced the sensitivity, increased the specificity, and did not markedly affect the accuracy of the three detectors, and only slightly improved the PPV of one detector (<i>Is It AI?</i>). These findings highlight the risks of relying on generic, freely available detectors that lack sufficient reliability, and demonstrate the urgent need for more robust detectors that are specifically trained on scientific contents such as western blot images.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PeerJ
Published
2025-02-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.18988
Citations
2
Primary Topic
COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.72
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

AI detectors are poor western blot classifiers: a study of accuracy and predictive values

Romain‐Daniel Gosselin
2 citations
PeerJ
COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
2.72
article

AI detectors are poor western blot classifiers: a study of accuracy and predictive values

Romain‐Daniel Gosselin
article en
2 citations

Abstract

The recent rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) capable of creating scientific images presents a challenge in the fight against academic fraud. This study evaluates the efficacy of three free web-based AI detectors in identifying AI-generated images of western blots, which is a very common technique in biology. We tested these detectors on AI-generated western blot images (<i>n</i> = 48, created using ChatGPT 4) and on authentic western blots (<i>n</i> = 48, from articles published before the rise of generative AI). Each detector returned a very different sensitivity (<i>Is It AI?</i>: 0.9583; <i>Hive Moderation</i>: 0.1875; and <i>Illuminarty</i>: 0.7083) and specificity (<i>Is It AI?</i>: 0.5417; <i>Hive Moderation</i>: 0.8750; and <i>Illuminarty</i>: 0.4167), and the predicted positive predictive value (PPV) for each was low. This suggests significant challenges in confidently determining image authenticity based solely on the current free AI detectors. Reducing the size of western blots reduced the sensitivity, increased the specificity, and did not markedly affect the accuracy of the three detectors, and only slightly improved the PPV of one detector (<i>Is It AI?</i>). These findings highlight the risks of relying on generic, freely available detectors that lack sufficient reliability, and demonstrate the urgent need for more robust detectors that are specifically trained on scientific contents such as western blot images.

PeerJVol. 13
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH), University of Lausanne (CH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
2.72
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

AI detectors are poor western blot classifiers: a study of accuracy and predictive values — Romain‐Daniel Gosselin · PeerJ (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS