Configuration

CPPC original submission row 17 (scTenifoldNet)

Original submitted workflow identified by immutable Table S2 row, not by team personal details. Benchmark method-name column may identify a reimplementation/feature and does not establish an identical current model.

2 evaluations · 2 results

Overview

An explanatory profile has not yet been reviewed for this record.

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

Evaluations and results

2 evaluations · 2 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

Dataset: CPPC B16-OVA mouse melanoma T-cell perturbation screens

Sorted by CPPC mean cell state L1 (lower is better). The best value in each column is highlighted. Decimals are rounded for display; each value links to the printed value and its source.

Tested configuration	Protocol and dataset	CPPC mean cell state L1	CPPC top-k overlap AUC
CPPC original submission row 17 (scTenifoldNet)Evaluation	CPPC original Challenge 1 final four-knockout prediction score	0.859	Not reported
CPPC original submission row 17 (scTenifoldNet)Evaluation	CPPC original Challenge 2 prospective target ranking score	Not reported	0.556

All 2 result rows with coverage, uncertainty and sources

Filter evaluations

Tested model or methodProtocolDatasetEvaluation setupMetricEvidence origin

Applied filters: All linked evaluations

Exact evaluated configurations and original reported results
Tested configuration	Protocol and dataset	Finding	Evidence and details
Configuration: CPPC original submission row 17 (scTenifoldNet)	Protocol: CPPC original Challenge 1 final four-knockout prediction score Dataset: CPPC B16-OVA mouse melanoma T-cell perturbation screens	0.859 CPPC mean cell state L1 unitless · lower Uncertainty: Not yet extracted Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Author-reported evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source cppc table s2 c row 17 Not reported Aggregation: Not reported CPPC Table S2 original and reimplemented submission comparisons · Supplementary Table S2; media-3.xlsx sheet 'Challenge 1 & 2'; cell C17; raw XLSX numeric value (not rounded display)
Configuration: CPPC original submission row 17 (scTenifoldNet)	Protocol: CPPC original Challenge 2 prospective target ranking score Dataset: CPPC B16-OVA mouse melanoma T-cell perturbation screens	0.556 CPPC top-k overlap AUC unitless · higher Uncertainty: Not yet extracted Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Author-reported evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source cppc table s2 d row 17 Not reported Aggregation: Not reported CPPC Table S2 original and reimplemented submission comparisons · Supplementary Table S2; media-3.xlsx sheet 'Challenge 1 & 2'; cell D17; raw XLSX numeric value (not rounded display)

Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-11-02-a7f03c9e55a5.

Use this configuration

How it works, versions and access

Additional methodological details, versions and access terms have not yet been extracted into a structured profile for this configuration. Consult the linked sources and evaluation records below.

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.

3 evidence rows matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-11-02-a7f03c9e55a5
Property and statement	Original source and location	Review and provenance
Facets: method types 1 values supervised_machine_learning Individual claims	CPPC Supplementary Note S1: implementation of methods and hyperparameter selection Original source ↗ CPPC Supplementary Note S1, "Implementation of additional methods": scTenifoldNet virtual knockout, then "trains a random forest classifier" to select genes Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: Supplement 1 (media-1.pdf) of 10.64898/2026.05.21.726863v1 Retrieved: 2026-10-12T13:55:50Z	conflicting claim ["source-hash-verification","automated-source-review"] · 2026-10-12 Audit details Correct the method type from none to supervised_machine_learning (use-case baseline review 2026-10-12, table 2). Mixed: the random forest only selects genes; proportions come from normalised fold changes. Evidence from docs/reviews/use-cases/baselines-2026-10-12.md. Independent review 2026-10-12: approved. Checked against Note S1 and Table S2 columns A to D and G to K only. Note S1 describes the authors' reimplementation; the original write-ups were not read. See docs/reviews/2026-10-12-method-type-corrections.md. Conflicting source claim: `"[\"supervised_machine_learning\"]"`. Claim record status: source_checked. Field: `facets.method_types` Claim: metadata-correction-tags-20261012-5156c542037cdf179824 Source artifact SHA-256: `80ee7ad255296a5650247f06bb1915af12adf6644c2b619417d6940e77368e9b` Hash scope: artifact_sha256 is the SHA-256 of the extracted member media-1.pdf. The archive digest describes one retrieval; a first download of the same URL was truncated and is not recorded. The licence is the article's, as printed in the Europe PMC full-text XML (PMC13228547). Archive member: media-1.pdf Inspected artifact Extraction artifact SHA-256: `80ee7ad255296a5650247f06bb1915af12adf6644c2b619417d6940e77368e9b` Extraction artifact
Facets: method types 1 values supervised_machine_learning Individual claims	Cancer Immunotherapy Data Science Challenge Original source ↗ CPPC Supplementary Note S1, "Implementation of additional methods": scTenifoldNet virtual knockout, then "trains a random forest classifier" to select genes Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: 10.64898/2026.05.21.726863v1; 2026 preprint Retrieved: 2026-09-30T21:23:33Z	conflicting claim ["source-hash-verification","automated-source-review"] · 2026-10-12 Audit details Correct the method type from none to supervised_machine_learning (use-case baseline review 2026-10-12, table 2). Mixed: the random forest only selects genes; proportions come from normalised fold changes. Evidence from docs/reviews/use-cases/baselines-2026-10-12.md. Independent review 2026-10-12: approved. Checked against Note S1 and Table S2 columns A to D and G to K only. Note S1 describes the authors' reimplementation; the original write-ups were not read. See docs/reviews/2026-10-12-method-type-corrections.md. Conflicting source claim: `"[\"supervised_machine_learning\"]"`. Claim record status: source_checked. Field: `facets.method_types` Claim: metadata-correction-tags-20261012-5156c542037cdf179824 Source artifact SHA-256: `6c98a7d0f0ab7abff1c76a7f184382a10ca82c39b34879b83d205a994412aa22` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Inspected artifact Extraction artifact SHA-256: `80ee7ad255296a5650247f06bb1915af12adf6644c2b619417d6940e77368e9b` Extraction artifact
Facets: method types 1 values supervised_machine_learning Individual claims	CPPC Table S2 original and reimplemented submission comparisons Original source ↗ CPPC Supplementary Note S1, "Implementation of additional methods": scTenifoldNet virtual knockout, then "trains a random forest classifier" to select genes Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: Table S2 media-3.xlsx, 10.64898/2026.05.21.726863v1 Retrieved: 2026-09-30T21:40:24Z	conflicting claim ["source-hash-verification","automated-source-review"] · 2026-10-12 Audit details Correct the method type from none to supervised_machine_learning (use-case baseline review 2026-10-12, table 2). Mixed: the random forest only selects genes; proportions come from normalised fold changes. Evidence from docs/reviews/use-cases/baselines-2026-10-12.md. Independent review 2026-10-12: approved. Checked against Note S1 and Table S2 columns A to D and G to K only. Note S1 describes the authors' reimplementation; the original write-ups were not read. See docs/reviews/2026-10-12-method-type-corrections.md. Conflicting source claim: `"[\"supervised_machine_learning\"]"`. Claim record status: source_checked. Field: `facets.method_types` Claim: metadata-correction-tags-20261012-5156c542037cdf179824 Source artifact SHA-256: `ed480039c8008fdfcedaa50a8248d32df6068a9230a18ab6953ada5535865105` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Archive member: media-3.xlsx Inspected artifact Extraction artifact SHA-256: `80ee7ad255296a5650247f06bb1915af12adf6644c2b619417d6940e77368e9b` Extraction artifact

How to read the evidence

Sources and history

Release 2026-11-02-a7f03c9e55a5 · Record review: source checked

2 source records and release history

Cancer Immunotherapy Data Science Challenge · Original source · 10.64898/2026.05.21.726863v1; 2026 preprint
CPPC Table S2 original and reimplemented submission comparisons · Original source · Table S2 media-3.xlsx, 10.64898/2026.05.21.726863v1

Download this release (gzip)

Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: ucc-research-config-cppc-submission-row-17

method types: supervised_machine_learning
review: method: automated-source-review; reviewed at: 2026-09-30T21:43:56Z; note: Primary-source table transcription and scope review; no independent reproduction or human scientific review.; reviewer note: role: research coverage worker; reviewer: codex
source row: 17
benchmark method label: scTenifoldNet
missing metadata: checkpoint hash: reason: unextracted; submission code revision: reason: unextracted

Related records

subject: CPPC original submission row 17 (scTenifoldNet): facets.method_types
system: cppc table s2 c row 17
system: cppc table s2 d row 17

Suggest a correction