FATHMM and Integrated_fitCons: Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced accuracy for 44 in silico tools against multiple large-scale functional assays of cancer susceptibility genes and Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations 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 FATHMM above Integrated_fitCons in 6 of 6 comparisons; Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations ranks Integrated_fitCons above FATHMM in 8 of 9 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 FATHMM above Integrated_fitCons in 7 of their 16 comparisons and Integrated_fitCons higher in 8; 1 is a tie. Of those papers, Comprehensive assessment… ranks Integrated_fitCons higher on its own (8 of 10).
- Rank FATHMM higher (1): Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced…
- Rank Integrated_fitCons higher (1): Comprehensive assessment…
- 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 FATHMM higher | Ranks Integrated_fitCons higher | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive assessment of computational algorithms in predicting cancer driver mutations and 4 more records · DOI | Agrees | 1 | 8 | 1 |
| 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 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
Comparisons in Comprehensive assessment… (10)
Comparisons in Clinical likelihood ratios and balanced… (6)
What disagrees
- studies
- 2
- Compared
- FATHMM, Integrated_fitCons
- 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-76d25ae738f80d2a · All contested results · How findings are made and followed up