Contested result

MVP and REVEL: Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes reverses the order

Low severity
Not yet reviewed
Ordering reversal
unknown

Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes ranks MVP above REVEL in 4 of 5 comparisons; 3 of 3 other studies rank REVEL above MVP.

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 REVEL above MVP in all 19 comparisons that are not ties (4 are ties). Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… ranks MVP above REVEL in 4 of its 5 comparisons and REVEL higher in 1.

Rank REVEL higher (3): Comprehensive assessment…, Livesey and Marsh 2025, An openly licensed benchmark…
Rank MVP higher (1): Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… (disagrees)
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.

REVEL higherTieMVP higherNumbers are counts of comparisons; the outlined bar is the paper that disagrees.

Papers compared (4)
Paper	Role	Ranks REVEL higher	Ranks MVP higher	Ties
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	Disagrees	1	4	0
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations and 4 more records · DOI	Agrees	6	0	4
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML) and 1 more record · DOI	Agrees	7	0	0
An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers and 1 more record · DOI	Agrees	6	0	0

Comparisons in Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… (5)

Protocol	Dataset	Metric	REVEL	MVP	Higher
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 editing	Benignity likelihood ratio (Source 'negative likelihood ratio' (TNR/FNR): likelihood ratio for benignity of a tolerated call, BRCA1 functional truth set), unitless	17.1	68	MVP
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 editing	False negatives (Functionally deleterious BRCA1 variants called tolerated), count	2	1	MVP
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 editing	Likelihood ratio (Positive likelihood ratio of a deleterious call (TPR/FPR), BRCA1 functional truth set), unitless	1.12	1.22	MVP
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 repair	False negatives (Functionally deleterious BRCA2 variants called tolerated), count	1	0	MVP
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 repair	Likelihood ratio (Positive likelihood ratio of a deleterious call (TPR/FPR), BRCA2 functional truth set), unitless	1.45	1	REVEL

Comparisons in Comprehensive assessment… (10)

Protocol	Dataset	Metric	REVEL	MVP	Higher
OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	OncoKB-annotated somatic missense mutations (oncogenic, likely oncogenic and likely neutral)	Accuracy (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold), fraction	0.67	0.65	REVEL
OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	OncoKB-annotated somatic missense mutations (oncogenic, likely oncogenic and likely neutral)	Negative predictive value (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold), fraction	0.67	0.65	REVEL
OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	OncoKB-annotated somatic missense mutations (oncogenic, likely oncogenic and likely neutral)	Precision (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold), fraction	0.67	0.65	REVEL
OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	OncoKB-annotated somatic missense mutations (oncogenic, likely oncogenic and likely neutral)	Recall (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold), fraction	0.67	0.65	REVEL
OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	OncoKB-annotated somatic missense mutations (oncogenic, likely oncogenic and likely neutral)	Specificity (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold), fraction	0.67	0.65	REVEL
Cell viability drivers versus neutral, median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 21)	Missense mutations with Ba/F3 and MCF10A cell viability calls (published and new)	Accuracy (cell viability drivers versus neutral, median-score threshold), fraction	0.64	0.64	Tie
Cell viability drivers versus neutral, median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 21)	Missense mutations with Ba/F3 and MCF10A cell viability calls (published and new)	Negative predictive value (cell viability drivers versus neutral, median-score threshold), fraction	0.64	0.64	Tie
Cell viability drivers versus neutral, median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 21)	Missense mutations with Ba/F3 and MCF10A cell viability calls (published and new)	Precision (cell viability drivers versus neutral, median-score threshold), fraction	0.64	0.64	Tie
Cell viability drivers versus neutral, median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 21)	Missense mutations with Ba/F3 and MCF10A cell viability calls (published and new)	Recall (cell viability drivers versus neutral, median-score threshold), fraction	0.65	0.64	REVEL
Cell viability drivers versus neutral, median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 21)	Missense mutations with Ba/F3 and MCF10A cell viability calls (published and new)	Specificity (cell viability drivers versus neutral, median-score threshold), fraction	0.64	0.64	Tie

Comparisons in Livesey and Marsh 2025 (7)

Protocol	Dataset	Metric	REVEL	MVP	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	76	50.5	REVEL
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	66.1	36.4	REVEL
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	13.2	5.36	REVEL
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	65.6	31.3	REVEL
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	66.3	39.9	REVEL
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	66.1	36.4	REVEL
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	67.5	37.8	REVEL

Comparisons in An openly licensed benchmark… (6)

Protocol	Dataset	Metric	REVEL	MVP	Higher
CGC missense oncogenicity, all genes (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	Missense variants in 768 Cancer Gene Census genes with open oncogenicity labels	AUROC (CGC missense, all genes), unitless	0.816	0.807	REVEL
CGC missense oncogenicity, all genes (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	Missense variants in 768 Cancer Gene Census genes with open oncogenicity labels	Average precision (CGC missense, all genes), unitless	0.652	0.57	REVEL
CGC missense oncogenicity, oncogenes (gain of function) (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	Missense variants in 768 Cancer Gene Census genes with open oncogenicity labels	AUROC (CGC missense, oncogenes (gain of function)), unitless	0.843	0.815	REVEL
CGC missense oncogenicity, oncogenes (gain of function) (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	Missense variants in 768 Cancer Gene Census genes with open oncogenicity labels	Average precision (CGC missense, oncogenes (gain of function)), unitless	0.739	0.657	REVEL
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 labels	AUROC (CGC missense, tumour suppressors (loss of function)), unitless	0.859	0.803	REVEL
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 labels	Average precision (CGC missense, tumour suppressors (loss of function)), unitless	0.618	0.502	REVEL

What disagrees

Other studies: rank REVEL above MVP in 19 of 19 comparisons
This study: ranks MVP above REVEL in 4 of 5 comparisons

Compared: MVP, REVEL
Study that disagrees: Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes, Cubuk et al. 2021, Supplementary tables 1-13 (41436_2021_1265_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx)
Other studies: 9 studies
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations, Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 10: Performance metrics of 17 algorithms, default categories, benchmark 2 (OncoKB), Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 21: Performance metrics of 33 algorithms, median-score threshold, benchmark 5 (cell viability), Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 22: Performance metrics of 17 algorithms, default categories, benchmark 5 (cell viability), Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 9: Performance metrics of 33 algorithms, median-score threshold, benchmark 2 (OncoKB), An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers, OncoCal repository, tables/tool_performance.tsv (per-tool AUROC and AUPRC by gene role), Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML), Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8)
Rule: Ordering reversal; unknown
Model identity: Matched across studies partly through links not yet reviewed

The compared numbers

Each value links to its result record and source. Compare values within one protocol; the rule compares rankings, not raw values across protocols.

In the study that disagrees (10)
Study	Tool	Protocol or benchmark	Metric	Value
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes; Cubuk et al. 2021, Supplementary tables 1-13 (41436_2021_1265_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx)	MVP (Cubuk et al. 2021)	BRCA1 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)	Benignity likelihood ratio (Source 'negative likelihood ratio' (TNR/FNR): likelihood ratio for benignity of a tolerated call, BRCA1 functional truth set)	68
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes; Cubuk et al. 2021, Supplementary tables 1-13 (41436_2021_1265_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx)	MVP (Cubuk et al. 2021)	BRCA1 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)	False negatives (Functionally deleterious BRCA1 variants called tolerated)	1
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes; Cubuk et al. 2021, Supplementary tables 1-13 (41436_2021_1265_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx)	MVP (Cubuk et al. 2021)	BRCA1 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)	Likelihood ratio (Positive likelihood ratio of a deleterious call (TPR/FPR), BRCA1 functional truth set)	1.22
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes; Cubuk et al. 2021, Supplementary tables 1-13 (41436_2021_1265_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx)	MVP (Cubuk et al. 2021)	BRCA2 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)	False negatives (Functionally deleterious BRCA2 variants called tolerated)	0
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes; Cubuk et al. 2021, Supplementary tables 1-13 (41436_2021_1265_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx)	MVP (Cubuk et al. 2021)	BRCA2 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)	Likelihood ratio (Positive likelihood ratio of a deleterious call (TPR/FPR), BRCA2 functional truth set)	1
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes; Cubuk et al. 2021, Supplementary tables 1-13 (41436_2021_1265_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx)	Revel_a (Cubuk et al. 2021)	BRCA1 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)	Benignity likelihood ratio (Source 'negative likelihood ratio' (TNR/FNR): likelihood ratio for benignity of a tolerated call, BRCA1 functional truth set)	17.1
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes; Cubuk et al. 2021, Supplementary tables 1-13 (41436_2021_1265_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx)	Revel_a (Cubuk et al. 2021)	BRCA1 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)	False negatives (Functionally deleterious BRCA1 variants called tolerated)	2
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes; Cubuk et al. 2021, Supplementary tables 1-13 (41436_2021_1265_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx)	Revel_a (Cubuk et al. 2021)	BRCA1 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)	Likelihood ratio (Positive likelihood ratio of a deleterious call (TPR/FPR), BRCA1 functional truth set)	1.12
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes; Cubuk et al. 2021, Supplementary tables 1-13 (41436_2021_1265_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx)	Revel_a (Cubuk et al. 2021)	BRCA2 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)	False negatives (Functionally deleterious BRCA2 variants called tolerated)	1
Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes; Cubuk et al. 2021, Supplementary tables 1-13 (41436_2021_1265_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx)	Revel_a (Cubuk et al. 2021)	BRCA2 functional truth set, binary in silico calls (Cubuk et al. 2021)	Likelihood ratio (Positive likelihood ratio of a deleterious call (TPR/FPR), BRCA2 functional truth set)	1.45

In the other studies (38)
Study	Tool	Protocol or benchmark	Metric	Value
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations; Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 9: Performance metrics of 33 algorithms, median-score threshold, benchmark 2 (OncoKB)	MVP (Chen et al. 2020)	OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	Accuracy (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold)	0.65
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations; Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 9: Performance metrics of 33 algorithms, median-score threshold, benchmark 2 (OncoKB)	MVP (Chen et al. 2020)	OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	Negative predictive value (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold)	0.65
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations; Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 9: Performance metrics of 33 algorithms, median-score threshold, benchmark 2 (OncoKB)	MVP (Chen et al. 2020)	OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	Precision (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold)	0.65
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations; Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 9: Performance metrics of 33 algorithms, median-score threshold, benchmark 2 (OncoKB)	MVP (Chen et al. 2020)	OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	Recall (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold)	0.65
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations; Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 9: Performance metrics of 33 algorithms, median-score threshold, benchmark 2 (OncoKB)	MVP (Chen et al. 2020)	OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	Specificity (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold)	0.65
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations; Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 21: Performance metrics of 33 algorithms, median-score threshold, benchmark 5 (cell viability)	MVP (Chen et al. 2020)	Cell viability drivers versus neutral, median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 21)	Recall (cell viability drivers versus neutral, median-score threshold)	0.64
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations; Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 9: Performance metrics of 33 algorithms, median-score threshold, benchmark 2 (OncoKB)	REVEL (Chen et al. 2020)	OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	Accuracy (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold)	0.67
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations; Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 9: Performance metrics of 33 algorithms, median-score threshold, benchmark 2 (OncoKB)	REVEL (Chen et al. 2020)	OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	Negative predictive value (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold)	0.67
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations; Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 9: Performance metrics of 33 algorithms, median-score threshold, benchmark 2 (OncoKB)	REVEL (Chen et al. 2020)	OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	Precision (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold)	0.67
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations; Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 9: Performance metrics of 33 algorithms, median-score threshold, benchmark 2 (OncoKB)	REVEL (Chen et al. 2020)	OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	Recall (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold)	0.67
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations; Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 9: Performance metrics of 33 algorithms, median-score threshold, benchmark 2 (OncoKB)	REVEL (Chen et al. 2020)	OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 9)	Specificity (OncoKB benchmark (positive set not stated), median-score threshold)	0.67
Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations; Chen et al. 2020, Additional file 21: Performance metrics of 33 algorithms, median-score threshold, benchmark 5 (cell viability)	REVEL (Chen et al. 2020)	Cell viability drivers versus neutral, median-score threshold (Chen et al. 2020 Additional file 21)	Recall (cell viability drivers versus neutral, median-score threshold)	0.65
An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers; OncoCal repository, tables/tool_performance.tsv (per-tool AUROC and AUPRC by gene role)	MVP rank score, dbNSFP 5.3.1a (Lee 2026)	CGC missense oncogenicity, all genes (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	Average precision (CGC missense, all genes)	0.57
An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers; OncoCal repository, tables/tool_performance.tsv (per-tool AUROC and AUPRC by gene role)	MVP rank score, dbNSFP 5.3.1a (Lee 2026)	CGC missense oncogenicity, all genes (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	AUROC (CGC missense, all genes)	0.807
An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers; OncoCal repository, tables/tool_performance.tsv (per-tool AUROC and AUPRC by gene role)	MVP rank score, dbNSFP 5.3.1a (Lee 2026)	CGC missense oncogenicity, oncogenes (gain of function) (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	Average precision (CGC missense, oncogenes (gain of function))	0.657
An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers; OncoCal repository, tables/tool_performance.tsv (per-tool AUROC and AUPRC by gene role)	MVP rank score, dbNSFP 5.3.1a (Lee 2026)	CGC missense oncogenicity, oncogenes (gain of function) (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	AUROC (CGC missense, oncogenes (gain of function))	0.815
An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers; OncoCal repository, tables/tool_performance.tsv (per-tool AUROC and AUPRC by gene role)	MVP rank score, dbNSFP 5.3.1a (Lee 2026)	CGC missense oncogenicity, tumour suppressors (loss of function) (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	Average precision (CGC missense, tumour suppressors (loss of function))	0.502
An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers; OncoCal repository, tables/tool_performance.tsv (per-tool AUROC and AUPRC by gene role)	MVP rank score, dbNSFP 5.3.1a (Lee 2026)	CGC missense oncogenicity, tumour suppressors (loss of function) (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	AUROC (CGC missense, tumour suppressors (loss of function))	0.803
An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers; OncoCal repository, tables/tool_performance.tsv (per-tool AUROC and AUPRC by gene role)	REVEL rank score, dbNSFP 5.3.1a (Lee 2026)	CGC missense oncogenicity, all genes (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	Average precision (CGC missense, all genes)	0.652
An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers; OncoCal repository, tables/tool_performance.tsv (per-tool AUROC and AUPRC by gene role)	REVEL rank score, dbNSFP 5.3.1a (Lee 2026)	CGC missense oncogenicity, all genes (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	AUROC (CGC missense, all genes)	0.816
An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers; OncoCal repository, tables/tool_performance.tsv (per-tool AUROC and AUPRC by gene role)	REVEL rank score, dbNSFP 5.3.1a (Lee 2026)	CGC missense oncogenicity, oncogenes (gain of function) (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	Average precision (CGC missense, oncogenes (gain of function))	0.739
An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers; OncoCal repository, tables/tool_performance.tsv (per-tool AUROC and AUPRC by gene role)	REVEL rank score, dbNSFP 5.3.1a (Lee 2026)	CGC missense oncogenicity, oncogenes (gain of function) (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	AUROC (CGC missense, oncogenes (gain of function))	0.843
An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers; OncoCal repository, tables/tool_performance.tsv (per-tool AUROC and AUPRC by gene role)	REVEL rank score, dbNSFP 5.3.1a (Lee 2026)	CGC missense oncogenicity, tumour suppressors (loss of function) (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	Average precision (CGC missense, tumour suppressors (loss of function))	0.618
An openly licensed benchmark and per-gene calibration map for missense pathogenicity predictors on activating cancer drivers; OncoCal repository, tables/tool_performance.tsv (per-tool AUROC and AUPRC by gene role)	REVEL rank score, dbNSFP 5.3.1a (Lee 2026)	CGC missense oncogenicity, tumour suppressors (loss of function) (Lee 2026, OncoCal tool_performance.tsv)	AUROC (CGC missense, tumour suppressors (loss of function))	0.859
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8); Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)	MVP (Livesey and Marsh 2025)	Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical benchmark: pairwise AUROC win rate, ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD missense	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)	50.5
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8); Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)	REVEL (Livesey and Marsh 2025)	Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical benchmark: pairwise AUROC win rate, ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD missense	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)	76
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8); Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)	MVP (Livesey and Marsh 2025)	Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise \|Spearman\| win rate, all 36 DMS sets	Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, \|Spearman\| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)	36.4
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8); Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)	MVP (Livesey and Marsh 2025)	Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise \|Spearman\| win rate, all 36 DMS sets	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)	5.36
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8); Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)	REVEL (Livesey and Marsh 2025)	Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise \|Spearman\| win rate, all 36 DMS sets	Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, \|Spearman\| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)	66.1
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8); Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)	REVEL (Livesey and Marsh 2025)	Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise \|Spearman\| win rate, all 36 DMS sets	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)	13.2
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8); Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)	MVP (Livesey and Marsh 2025)	Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise \|Spearman\| win rate, direct assays only	Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, \|Spearman\| with DMS on shared variants, direct DMS assays only)	31.3
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8); Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)	REVEL (Livesey and Marsh 2025)	Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise \|Spearman\| win rate, direct assays only	Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, \|Spearman\| with DMS on shared variants, direct DMS assays only)	65.6
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8); Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)	MVP (Livesey and Marsh 2025)	Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise \|Spearman\| win rate, indirect assays only	Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, \|Spearman\| with DMS on shared variants, indirect DMS assays only)	39.9
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8); Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)	REVEL (Livesey and Marsh 2025)	Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise \|Spearman\| win rate, indirect assays only	Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, \|Spearman\| with DMS on shared variants, indirect DMS assays only)	66.3
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8); Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)	MVP (Livesey and Marsh 2025)	Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise \|Spearman\| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions with gaps filled	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)	37.8
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8); Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)	REVEL (Livesey and Marsh 2025)	Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise \|Spearman\| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions with gaps filled	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)	67.5
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8); Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)	MVP (Livesey and Marsh 2025)	Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise \|Spearman\| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions only	Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, \|Spearman\| with DMS on shared variants, SNV-accessible substitutions only)	36.4
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8); Livesey and Marsh 2025, Genome Biology 26:104 (Europe PMC full text XML)	REVEL (Livesey and Marsh 2025)	Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise \|Spearman\| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions only	Pairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, \|Spearman\| with DMS on shared variants, SNV-accessible substitutions only)	66.1

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-336e9f906c6f0246 · All contested results · How findings are made and followed up