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 GERP above DANN in 5 of 6 comparisons; 2 of 2 other studies rank DANN above GERP.
2 papers rank DANN above GERP in all 12 comparisons that are not ties (1 is a tie). Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… ranks GERP above DANN in 5 of its 6 comparisons and DANN higher in 1.
Brandes et al. 2023 Supplementary Table 2: full benchmark evaluations of ESM1b and all other methods ranks SiPhy above GERP in 4 of 4 comparisons; 2 of 2 other studies rank GERP above SiPhy.
2 papers rank GERP above SiPhy in 11 of their 13 comparisons and SiPhy higher in 1; 1 is a tie. Brandes et al. 2023 ranks SiPhy above GERP in all 4 of its comparisons.