Where one study disagrees with what other studies report for the same models, and what we are doing to resolve each case.
These are automatic leads, not findings of error. Each release, a check compares how every study ranks the models it shares with other studies. It flags a study that reverses the order the others agree on, or whose gap to a shared reference model lies well outside theirs. Different tasks, populations or metrics often explain a flag.
A flag never hides a result. Flagged results stay in every table, page and download, marked Contested. A result is withheld only when a reviewer marks it disputed.
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes ranks MetaLR above SuSPect in 4 of 5 comparisons; Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) ranks SuSPect above MetaLR in 6 of 7 comparisons. No other study gives a verdict, so neither is the outlier.
2 papers rank SuSPect above MetaLR in 7 of their 13 comparisons and MetaLR higher in 5; 1 is a tie. Of those papers, Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… ranks MetaLR higher on its own (4 of 6).
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes ranks MetaSVM above SuSPect in 5 of 6 comparisons; Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) ranks SuSPect above MetaSVM in 7 of 7 comparisons. No other study gives a verdict, so neither is the outlier.
2 papers rank SuSPect above MetaSVM in 8 of their 13 comparisons and MetaSVM higher in 5. Of those papers, Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… ranks MetaSVM higher on its own (5 of 6).