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 MetaSVM above Condel in 4 of 5 comparisons; Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) ranks Condel above MetaSVM in 7 of 7 comparisons. No other study gives a verdict, so neither is the outlier.
2 papers rank Condel above MetaSVM in 8 of their 13 comparisons and MetaSVM higher in 4; 1 is a tie. Of those papers, Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… ranks MetaSVM 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 SIFT above Condel in 5 of 5 comparisons; Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) ranks Condel above SIFT in 7 of 7 comparisons. No other study gives a verdict, so neither is the outlier.
2 papers rank Condel above SIFT in 7 of their 12 comparisons and SIFT higher in 5. Of those papers, Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… ranks SIFT 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 MVP above Condel in 4 of 5 comparisons; Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) ranks Condel above MVP in 6 of 7 comparisons. No other study gives a verdict, so neither is the outlier.
2 papers rank Condel above MVP in 7 of their 12 comparisons and MVP higher in 5. Of those papers, Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… ranks MVP higher on its own (4 of 5).
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes ranks PolyPhen-2 above Condel in 4 of 5 comparisons; Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) ranks Condel above PolyPhen-2 in 6 of 6 comparisons. No other study gives a verdict, so neither is the outlier.
2 papers rank Condel above PolyPhen-2 in 7 of their 12 comparisons and PolyPhen-2 higher in 4; 1 is a tie. Of those papers, Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… ranks PolyPhen-2 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 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 CADD above Condel in 4 of 5 comparisons; Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) ranks Condel above CADD in 6 of 7 comparisons. No other study gives a verdict, so neither is the outlier.
2 papers rank Condel above CADD in 7 of their 12 comparisons and CADD higher in 5. Of those papers, Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… ranks CADD higher on its own (4 of 5).