CPPC original submission row 7 (Expression_Conditioned)
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.
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 7 (Expression_Conditioned)Evaluation | CPPC original Challenge 1 final four-knockout prediction score | 0.788 | Not reported |
| CPPC original submission row 7 (Expression_Conditioned)Evaluation | CPPC original Challenge 2 prospective target ranking score | Not reported | 0.566 |
All 2 result rows with coverage, uncertainty and sources
Filter evaluations
Applied filters: All linked evaluations
| Tested configuration | Protocol and dataset | Finding | Evidence and details |
|---|---|---|---|
| Configuration: CPPC original submission row 7 (Expression_Conditioned) | Protocol: CPPC original Challenge 1 final four-knockout prediction score Dataset: CPPC B16-OVA mouse melanoma T-cell perturbation screens | 0.788 CPPC mean cell state L1 unitless · lower Uncertainty: Not yet extracted Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Author-reported evaluation · Source checkedMethods, coverage and sourceNot reported Aggregation: Not reported CPPC Table S2 original and reimplemented submission comparisons · Supplementary Table S2; media-3.xlsx sheet 'Challenge 1 & 2'; cell C7; raw XLSX numeric value (not rounded display) |
| Configuration: CPPC original submission row 7 (Expression_Conditioned) | Protocol: CPPC original Challenge 2 prospective target ranking score Dataset: CPPC B16-OVA mouse melanoma T-cell perturbation screens | 0.566 CPPC top-k overlap AUC unitless · higher Uncertainty: Not yet extracted Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Author-reported evaluation · Source checkedMethods, coverage and sourceNot reported Aggregation: Not reported CPPC Table S2 original and reimplemented submission comparisons · Supplementary Table S2; media-3.xlsx sheet 'Challenge 1 & 2'; cell D7; 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
| Property and statement | Original source and location | Review and provenance |
|---|---|---|
Facets: method types1 values
| CPPC Supplementary Note S1: implementation of methods and hyperparameter selection CPPC Supplementary Note S1, Expression_Conditioned: each gene represented by its expression across training conditions, then a fitted predictor 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 | conflicting claim ["source-hash-verification","automated-source-review"] · 2026-10-12 Audit detailsCorrect the method type from none to supervised_machine_learning (use-case baseline review 2026-10-12, table 2). Note S1 describes the authors' reimplementation of this submission from its write-up and code (Table S2 column I). The method maps each gene to features, then a predictor is fitted on Screen 1 (main-text Methods, "Implementation of top methods"; Figure 2A). The submitted write-ups (Document S1, Google Drive) were not read, so the submission's own predictor is not known. 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: Field: Claim: metadata-correction-tags-20261012-a43973ae340595b28457 Source artifact SHA-256: 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 Extraction artifact SHA-256: |
Facets: method types1 values
| Cancer Immunotherapy Data Science Challenge CPPC Supplementary Note S1, Expression_Conditioned: each gene represented by its expression across training conditions, then a fitted predictor Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: 10.64898/2026.05.21.726863v1; 2026 preprint | conflicting claim ["source-hash-verification","automated-source-review"] · 2026-10-12 Audit detailsCorrect the method type from none to supervised_machine_learning (use-case baseline review 2026-10-12, table 2). Note S1 describes the authors' reimplementation of this submission from its write-up and code (Table S2 column I). The method maps each gene to features, then a predictor is fitted on Screen 1 (main-text Methods, "Implementation of top methods"; Figure 2A). The submitted write-ups (Document S1, Google Drive) were not read, so the submission's own predictor is not known. 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: Field: Claim: metadata-correction-tags-20261012-a43973ae340595b28457 Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Extraction artifact SHA-256: |
Facets: method types1 values
| CPPC Table S2 original and reimplemented submission comparisons CPPC Supplementary Note S1, Expression_Conditioned: each gene represented by its expression across training conditions, then a fitted predictor 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 | conflicting claim ["source-hash-verification","automated-source-review"] · 2026-10-12 Audit detailsCorrect the method type from none to supervised_machine_learning (use-case baseline review 2026-10-12, table 2). Note S1 describes the authors' reimplementation of this submission from its write-up and code (Table S2 column I). The method maps each gene to features, then a predictor is fitted on Screen 1 (main-text Methods, "Implementation of top methods"; Figure 2A). The submitted write-ups (Document S1, Google Drive) were not read, so the submission's own predictor is not known. 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: Field: Claim: metadata-correction-tags-20261012-a43973ae340595b28457 Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Archive member: media-3.xlsx Extraction artifact SHA-256: |
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
Technical metadata and extraction receipts
Stable ID: ucc-research-config-cppc-submission-row-7
- 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
- 7
- benchmark method label
- Expression_Conditioned
- missing metadata
- checkpoint hash: reason: unextracted; submission code revision: reason: unextracted