Condel and MetaSVM: 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 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.
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 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).
- Rank Condel higher (1): Livesey and Marsh 2025
- Rank MetaSVM 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.
| Paper | Role | Ranks Condel higher | Ranks MetaSVM higher | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) and 1 more record · DOI | Agrees | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes and 1 more record · DOI | Agrees | 1 | 4 | 1 |
Comparisons in Livesey and Marsh 2025 (7)
| Protocol | Dataset | Metric | Condel | MetaSVM | Higher |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical benchmark: pairwise AUROC win rate, ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD missense | Livesey 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), percent | 49.9 | 45.5 | Condel |
| Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets | Livesey 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), percent | 47.5 | 39 | Condel |
| Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets | Livesey 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), percent | 9.76 | 8.13 | Condel |
| Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, direct assays only | Livesey 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), percent | 45.2 | 39.4 | Condel |
| Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, indirect assays only | Livesey 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), percent | 49 | 38.5 | Condel |
| Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions only | Livesey 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), percent | 47.5 | 39 | Condel |
| Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions with gaps filled | Livesey 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), percent | 47.8 | 39.9 | Condel |
Comparisons in Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… (6)
What disagrees
- studies
- 2
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-2c5007aa0c1f2053 · All contested results · How findings are made and followed up