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.
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) ranks MutationAssessor above FATHMM-MKL in 7 of 7 comparisons; 2 of 2 other studies rank FATHMM-MKL above MutationAssessor.
2 papers rank FATHMM-MKL above MutationAssessor in 19 of their 25 comparisons and MutationAssessor higher in 6. Livesey and Marsh 2025 ranks MutationAssessor above FATHMM-MKL in all 7 of its comparisons.
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) ranks MetaLR above FATHMM-MKL in 7 of 7 comparisons; 2 of 2 other studies rank FATHMM-MKL above MetaLR.
2 papers rank FATHMM-MKL above MetaLR in 18 of their 25 comparisons and MetaLR higher in 5; 2 are ties. Livesey and Marsh 2025 ranks MetaLR above FATHMM-MKL in all 7 of its comparisons.
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes ranks FATHMM-MKL above SNAP2 in 3 of 4 comparisons; Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) ranks SNAP2 above FATHMM-MKL in 7 of 7 comparisons. No other study gives a verdict, so neither is the outlier.
2 papers rank SNAP2 above FATHMM-MKL in 8 of their 12 comparisons and FATHMM-MKL higher in 3; 1 is a tie. Of those papers, Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… ranks FATHMM-MKL higher on its own (3 of 5).
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes ranks FATHMM-MKL above Condel in 5 of 5 comparisons; Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) ranks Condel above FATHMM-MKL in 7 of 7 comparisons. No other study gives a verdict, so neither is the outlier.
2 papers rank Condel above FATHMM-MKL in 7 of their 12 comparisons and FATHMM-MKL higher in 5. Of those papers, Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… ranks FATHMM-MKL higher on its own (5 of 5).
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes ranks FATHMM-MKL above BayesDel in 3 of 4 comparisons; Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) ranks BayesDel above FATHMM-MKL in 7 of 7 comparisons. No other study gives a verdict, so neither is the outlier.
2 papers rank FATHMM-MKL above BayesDel in 3 of their 12 comparisons and BayesDel higher in 8; 1 is a tie. Of those papers, Livesey and Marsh 2025 ranks BayesDel higher on its own (7 of 7).