rewire.itbenchmarks
Benchmark

HECTOR 2026 preprint: ENIGMA Evidence Repository validation

Published-study grouping of the catalogued evaluation protocol. This grouping does not claim an executable suite, full-paper extraction or independent clinical validation. Preprint; not peer reviewed.

1 evaluation · 2 results

Overview

Published-study grouping of the catalogued evaluation protocol. This grouping does not claim an executable suite, full-paper extraction or independent clinical validation. Preprint; not peer reviewed.

Consult the linked sources for architecture or protocol details. Missing evidence is not evidence of a missing capability.

1 recorded evaluation, 2 metric rows. A comparison chart has not yet been validated for these results. The table retains the individual findings and their sources.

View coverage and remaining gaps across all benchmarks

Results

Results are available, but no reviewed comparison panel is linked in this release.

All evaluations

1 evaluation · 2 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

Filter evaluations

Applied filters: All linked evaluations

Exact evaluated configurations and original reported results
Tested configurationProtocol and datasetFindingEvidence and details
Configuration: HECTOR automated classifier (ENIGMA V1.2 specification)Protocol: HECTOR vs. ENIGMA Evidence Repository (eRepo) agreement
Dataset: ENIGMA Evidence Repository (eRepo) BRCA1/BRCA2 reference set
75.5% (108/143) classification_agreement_rate
percent · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Author-reported evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

HECTOR eRepo concordance evaluation

Not reported

Aggregation: Not reported

HECTOR: A Web-Based Tool for Automated BRCA1/BRCA2 Variant Classification Under the ClinGen ENIGMA Specifications · Results, "Evidence Repository": "At the classification level, HECTOR agreed with the ENIGMA VCEP classification for 108 of the 143 variants (75.5%)."
Configuration: HECTOR automated classifier (ENIGMA V1.2 specification)Protocol: HECTOR vs. ENIGMA Evidence Repository (eRepo) agreement
Dataset: ENIGMA Evidence Repository (eRepo) BRCA1/BRCA2 reference set
78.9% (326/413) criteria_code_agreement_rate
percent · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Author-reported evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

HECTOR eRepo concordance evaluation

Not reported

Aggregation: Not reported

HECTOR: A Web-Based Tool for Automated BRCA1/BRCA2 Variant Classification Under the ClinGen ENIGMA Specifications · Results, "Evidence Repository": "...the ENIGMA VCEP applied 413 evidence codes, of which HECTOR reproduced 326 (78.9%) at the identical code and strength (Figure 1)."

Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-10-06-fea06f63ac0e.

Methods and evaluation design

Procedure, tasks and evaluated configurations

Evaluation design

Benchmarks bring together tasks and protocols. A task describes the biological question; a protocol defines a particular test.

These source-backed links do not make different protocols or scores interchangeable.

Baseline coverage

Reference methods help show what a model adds beyond simple controls. We track a null control and a conventional method for each protocol.

0 of 2 active baseline roles have published Rewire measurements in this release. Measurements on a selected protocol do not establish coverage of an entire suite.

Baseline status by linked protocol

Protocol coverage CSV · Model evaluation matrix · Source table · Release and checksums

Coverage is derived from release 2026-10-06-fea06f63ac0e. Source citations describe the original records; they do not validate an unreviewed baseline proposal. No results have been generated by this audit.

Run this benchmark

Choose a concrete protocol before running an evaluation. Its inputs, split and scoring rules determine which results can be compared.

Run instructions

No runnable recipe has been reviewed for this benchmark. Dataset access, model requirements, licences and compute requirements must be checked against its sources before execution.

Strengths, limitations and unresolved questions

Evidence

Source checking verifies the cited claim or transcription. It does not establish independent reproduction.

Evidence table

Inspect claims, sources and review details

Trace each statement to its source and review. A context-only reference supports the record generally; it does not verify an individual field. Source checking does not reproduce an experiment.

One row per statement and cited source. Multiple citations are not independent evaluations. Shared locators are labelled explicitly.

0 evidence rows matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-10-06-fea06f63ac0e
Property and statementOriginal source and locationReview and provenance

No evidence rows match these filters. Choose another scope or clear the search.

Sources and history

View linked audit checks and correction history

Release 2026-10-06-fea06f63ac0e · Record review: source checked

1 source records and release historyDownload this release
Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: uc-clinical-20261005-hector-benchmark

areas
dna-genomes
contexts
clinical_research
entity level
suite
grouping type
published_study_evaluations
executable suite
false
publication status
preprint_not_peer_reviewed
source locator
Results, "Evidence Repository"
review
method: automated_source_review; reviewer: Claude Sonnet clinical coverage worker (research-evidence intake); date: 2026-10-05; note: Transcription from inspected primary source. No execution, independent replication or human scientific review.; source id: uc-clinical-20261005-source-hector-preprint
Related records

Suggest a correction