rewirebio.iobenchmarks
Contested result

MetaRNN and VARITY: Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) and An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers disagree

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

Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) ranks VARITY above MetaRNN in 6 of 7 comparisons; An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers ranks MetaRNN above VARITY in 3 of 4 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

3 papers rank MetaRNN above VARITY in 5 of their 14 comparisons and VARITY higher in 7; 2 are ties. Of those papers, Livesey and Marsh 2025 ranks VARITY higher on its own (6 of 7).

Papers grouped by which system they rank higher: MetaRNN or VARITYRank MetaRNN higher: An openly licensed benchmark…, ProteinGym. Rank VARITY higher: Livesey and Marsh 2025. Mixed: none.Rank MetaRNN higherMixedRank VARITY higherAn openly licensedbenchmark…An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer driversProteinGymProteinGym: Large-Scale Benchmarks for Protein Fitness Prediction and DesignLivesey and Marsh 2025Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)
  • Rank MetaRNN higher (2): An openly licensed benchmark…, ProteinGym
  • Rank VARITY higher (1): Livesey and Marsh 2025
  • 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 MetaRNN or VARITY higherLivesey and Marsh 2025: MetaRNN higher in 1, VARITY higher in 6, 0 ties. An openly licensed benchmark…: MetaRNN higher in 3, VARITY higher in 1, 2 ties. ProteinGym: MetaRNN higher in 1, VARITY higher in 0, 0 ties.Livesey and Marsh 2025Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)1 MetaRNN higher16 VARITY higher6An openly licensed benchmark…An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers3 MetaRNN higher32 tie21 VARITY higher1ProteinGymProteinGym: Large-Scale Benchmarks for Protein Fitness Prediction and Design1 MetaRNN higher1
MetaRNN higherTieVARITY higherNumbers are counts of comparisons; the outlined bar is the paper that disagrees.
Comparisons in Livesey and Marsh 2025 (7)
ProtocolDatasetMetricMetaRNNVARITYHigher
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), percent82.263.7MetaRNN
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), percent73.280.5VARITY
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), percent16.627.9VARITY
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), percent74.877.4VARITY
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), percent71.983.7VARITY
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), percent73.280.5VARITY
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), percent74.180.5VARITY
Comparisons in An openly licensed benchmark… (6)
ProtocolDatasetMetricMetaRNNVARITYHigher
CGC missense oncogenicity, all genes (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)Missense variants in 768 Cancer Gene Census genes with open oncogenicity labelsAUROC (CGC missense, all genes), unitless0.8530.867VARITY
CGC missense oncogenicity, all genes (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)Missense variants in 768 Cancer Gene Census genes with open oncogenicity labelsAverage precision (CGC missense, all genes), unitless0.7330.717MetaRNN
CGC missense oncogenicity, oncogenes (gain of function) (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)Missense variants in 768 Cancer Gene Census genes with open oncogenicity labelsAUROC (CGC missense, oncogenes (gain of function)), unitless0.8870.886Tie
CGC missense oncogenicity, oncogenes (gain of function) (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)Missense variants in 768 Cancer Gene Census genes with open oncogenicity labelsAverage precision (CGC missense, oncogenes (gain of function)), unitless0.7930.78MetaRNN
CGC missense oncogenicity, tumour suppressors (loss of function) (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)Missense variants in 768 Cancer Gene Census genes with open oncogenicity labelsAUROC (CGC missense, tumour suppressors (loss of function)), unitless0.8890.886Tie
CGC missense oncogenicity, tumour suppressors (loss of function) (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)Missense variants in 768 Cancer Gene Census genes with open oncogenicity labelsAverage precision (CGC missense, tumour suppressors (loss of function)), unitless0.7150.658MetaRNN
Comparisons in ProteinGym (1)
ProtocolDatasetMetricMetaRNNVARITYHigher
ProteinGym clinical substitutions, supervised predictors, average AUC (commit 144fe22)ProteinGym clinical substitution benchmark at commit 144fe22AUROC (ProteinGym clinical substitutions, supervised clinical predictors, Average_AUC over proteins), unitless0.9770.918MetaRNN

What disagrees

studies
2
Compared
MetaRNN, VARITY
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-0fd88561eedbd7c2 · All contested results · How findings are made and followed up