rewirebio.iobenchmarks
Contested result

SuSPect and MetaLR: Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes and Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) disagree

  • Low severity
  • Not yet reviewed
  • two-study-conflict
  • unknown

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.

An automatic lead, not a finding of error. The results below are shown as published, everywhere on the site, until a reviewer decides otherwise.

Which studies agree

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).

Papers grouped by which system they rank higher: SuSPect or MetaLRRank SuSPect higher: Livesey and Marsh 2025. Rank MetaLR higher: Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced…. Mixed: none.Rank SuSPect higherMixedRank MetaLR higherLivesey and Marsh 2025Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)Clinical likelihoodratios and balanced…Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes
  • Rank SuSPect higher (1): Livesey and Marsh 2025
  • Rank MetaLR higher (1): Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced…
  • Mixed (0): none

Each paper sits where at least two thirds of its comparisons point; Mixed means neither model reaches two thirds. The larger, outlined dot is the paper that disagrees.

Comparisons in which each paper scores SuSPect or MetaLR higherLivesey and Marsh 2025: SuSPect higher in 6, MetaLR higher in 1, 0 ties. Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced…: SuSPect higher in 1, MetaLR higher in 4, 1 tie.Livesey and Marsh 2025Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)6 SuSPect higher61 MetaLR higher1Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced…Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes1 SuSPect higher11 tie14 MetaLR higher4
SuSPect higherTieMetaLR higherNumbers are counts of comparisons; the outlined bar is the paper that disagrees.
Comparisons in Livesey and Marsh 2025 (7)
ProtocolDatasetMetricSuSPectMetaLRHigher
Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical benchmark: pairwise AUROC win rate, ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD missenseLivesey and Marsh 2025 clinical set: ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD v4.1 missense (819 proteins)Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, per-protein AUROC on shared variants, ClinVar P/LP versus gnomAD v4.1 missense, proteins with at least 10 of each), percent4649.1MetaLR
Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS setsLivesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets), percent58.445.7SuSPect
Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS setsLivesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against the five top-ranked VEPs (column top_5_winrate; the five are not listed in the table), |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets), percent10.48.13SuSPect
Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, direct assays onlyLivesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, direct DMS assays only), percent59.542.1SuSPect
Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, indirect assays onlyLivesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, indirect DMS assays only), percent57.548.3SuSPect
Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions onlyLivesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, SNV-accessible substitutions only), percent55.645.7SuSPect
Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions with gaps filledLivesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS, SNV-accessible substitutions, missing predictions filled with the VEP's most benign score), percent56.646.6SuSPect
Comparisons in Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… (6)
ProtocolDatasetMetricSuSPectMetaLRHigher
BRCA1 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)BRCA1 functional truth set: 1641 missense variants classed deleterious or tolerated by HAP1 cell survival after saturation genome editingBenignity likelihood ratio (Source 'negative likelihood ratio' (TNR/FNR): likelihood ratio for benignity of a tolerated call, BRCA1 functional truth set), unitless1.96.05MetaLR
BRCA1 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)BRCA1 functional truth set: 1641 missense variants classed deleterious or tolerated by HAP1 cell survival after saturation genome editingFalse negatives (Functionally deleterious BRCA1 variants called tolerated), count17318MetaLR
BRCA1 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)BRCA1 functional truth set: 1641 missense variants classed deleterious or tolerated by HAP1 cell survival after saturation genome editingLikelihood ratio (Positive likelihood ratio of a deleterious call (TPR/FPR), BRCA1 functional truth set), unitless141.34SuSPect
BRCA2 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)BRCA2 functional truth set: 188 missense variants classed deleterious or tolerated by Homology-directed repairBenignity likelihood ratio (Source 'negative likelihood ratio' (TNR/FNR): likelihood ratio for benignity of a tolerated call, BRCA2 functional truth set), unitless11.421.8MetaLR
BRCA2 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)BRCA2 functional truth set: 188 missense variants classed deleterious or tolerated by Homology-directed repairFalse negatives (Functionally deleterious BRCA2 variants called tolerated), count21MetaLR
BRCA2 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)BRCA2 functional truth set: 188 missense variants classed deleterious or tolerated by Homology-directed repairLikelihood ratio (Positive likelihood ratio of a deleterious call (TPR/FPR), BRCA2 functional truth set), unitless1.51.49Tie

What disagrees

studies
2
Compared
SuSPect, MetaLR
Study that disagrees
Other studies
Rule
two-study-conflict; unknown
Model identity
Matched across studies partly through links not yet reviewed

Follow-up

Current state: Not yet reviewed.

No one has reviewed this finding yet.

How to help resolve this

If you know why these studies disagree, for example a different population, metric or preprocessing step, or you have a corrected value, tell us through the contribution form. A reviewer checks every submission against its source before anything changes, and the step is added to the follow-up above.

Finding discrepancy-0c706dec6e1b626b · All contested results · How findings are made and followed up