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.
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations ranks GenoCanyon above SIFT in 6 of 8 comparisons; 3 of 3 other studies rank SIFT above GenoCanyon.
3 papers rank SIFT above GenoCanyon in 14 of their 16 comparisons and GenoCanyon higher in 1; 1 is a tie. Comprehensive assessment… ranks GenoCanyon above SIFT in 6 of its 10 comparisons and SIFT higher in 2; 2 are ties.
Brandes et al. 2023 Supplementary Table 2: full benchmark evaluations of ESM1b and all other methods ranks GenoCanyon above phyloP in 3 of 3 comparisons; 2 of 2 other studies rank phyloP above GenoCanyon.
2 papers rank phyloP above GenoCanyon in 11 of their 13 comparisons and GenoCanyon higher in 1; 1 is a tie. Brandes et al. 2023 ranks GenoCanyon above phyloP in all 3 comparisons that are not ties (1 is a tie).
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations ranks GenoCanyon above MetaSVM in 6 of 8 comparisons; 2 of 2 other studies rank MetaSVM above GenoCanyon.
2 papers rank MetaSVM above GenoCanyon in 12 of their 13 comparisons and GenoCanyon higher in 1. Comprehensive assessment… ranks GenoCanyon above MetaSVM in 6 of its 10 comparisons and MetaSVM higher in 2; 2 are ties.