Dataset

Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs

Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons

The paper prints three different round-1 binder rates and two round-2 expression rates. Section 2.4 gives round 1 as '2.5% (5/201)' and round 2 as 'a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested)'; Section 4.1 gives expression as improving 'from 73% to 94%'; Section 4.1 gives the binder percentage as rising 'from 3% in the first round to 13%'. All the printed values are recorded with their locators and none is reconciled here.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Sections 2.4, 4.1 and 4.2

Section 4.1 says Figure 8 shows 'the total number of validated binders across the 3 binding thresholds' but no section of the paper defines those three thresholds. No hit definition is therefore recorded for the Figure 8 counts, and the binding protocol's success threshold is left unstated with a reason rather than guessed.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1; Figure 8 caption

The 400 round-2 designs Adaptyv expressed and assayed against EGFR, selected from 1,131 submissions, with per-design results published in the round 2 repository.

Evaluation results

7 evaluations · 9 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

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: Paired BindCraft designs joined by custom linkers with a GB1 solubility tag	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI binding screen Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	did not bind Count (designs confirmed as binders by BLI) count · higher Uncertainty: Not applicable: An exact count. Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The paper prints three different round-1 binder rates and two round-2 expression rates. Section 2.4 gives round 1 as '2.5% (5/201)' and round 2 as 'a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested)'; Section 4.1 gives expression as improving 'from 73% to 94%'; Section 4.1 gives the binder percentage as rising 'from 3% in the first round to 13%'. All the printed values are recorded with their locators and none is reconciled here.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Sections 2.4, 4.1 and 4.2 Section 4.1 says Figure 8 shows 'the total number of validated binders across the 3 binding thresholds' but no section of the paper defines those three thresholds. No hit definition is therefore recorded for the Figure 8 counts, and the binding protocol's success threshold is left unstated with a reason rather than guessed.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1; Figure 8 caption Methods, coverage and source Paired BindCraft designs with a GB1 tag in Adaptyv round 2: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI binding screen uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-bli-binding Aggregation: Not reported Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 3.1: 'Five of these composite designs were tested in R2; all five showed high expression but did not bind.'
Configuration: Paired BindCraft designs joined by custom linkers with a GB1 solubility tag	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition cell-free expression rate Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	all five showed high expression Count (designs with high expression) count · higher Uncertainty: Not applicable: An exact count. Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The paper prints three different round-1 binder rates and two round-2 expression rates. Section 2.4 gives round 1 as '2.5% (5/201)' and round 2 as 'a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested)'; Section 4.1 gives expression as improving 'from 73% to 94%'; Section 4.1 gives the binder percentage as rising 'from 3% in the first round to 13%'. All the printed values are recorded with their locators and none is reconciled here.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Sections 2.4, 4.1 and 4.2 Section 4.1 says Figure 8 shows 'the total number of validated binders across the 3 binding thresholds' but no section of the paper defines those three thresholds. No hit definition is therefore recorded for the Figure 8 counts, and the binding protocol's success threshold is left unstated with a reason rather than guessed.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1; Figure 8 caption Methods, coverage and source Paired BindCraft designs with a GB1 tag in Adaptyv round 2: Adaptyv EGFR competition cell-free expression rate uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-expression Aggregation: Not reported Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 3.1: 'Five of these composite designs were tested in R2; all five showed high expression but did not bind.'
Configuration: BindCraft with helical loss -2.0 as entered in Adaptyv round 2	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition cell-free expression rate Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	all ten showed high expression rates Count (designs with high expression) count · higher Uncertainty: Not applicable: An exact count. Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The paper prints three different round-1 binder rates and two round-2 expression rates. Section 2.4 gives round 1 as '2.5% (5/201)' and round 2 as 'a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested)'; Section 4.1 gives expression as improving 'from 73% to 94%'; Section 4.1 gives the binder percentage as rising 'from 3% in the first round to 13%'. All the printed values are recorded with their locators and none is reconciled here.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Sections 2.4, 4.1 and 4.2 Section 4.1 says Figure 8 shows 'the total number of validated binders across the 3 binding thresholds' but no section of the paper defines those three thresholds. No hit definition is therefore recorded for the Figure 8 counts, and the binding protocol's success threshold is left unstated with a reason rather than guessed.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1; Figure 8 caption Methods, coverage and source BindCraft with helical loss -2.0 in Adaptyv round 2: Adaptyv EGFR competition cell-free expression rate uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-expression Aggregation: Not reported Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 3.1: 'Ten out of the author's submitted beta sheeted designs were tested and - given the lower overall expression rate of the competition in R1 - surprisingly all ten showed high expression rates'
Configuration: BindCraft with helical loss -2.0 as entered in Adaptyv round 2	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI affinity Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	82 nM Dissociation constant (best KD for EGFR by BLI among the round 2 BindCraft entries; the tightest binding de novo binder in round 2) nanomolar · lower Uncertainty: Not reported by the source: No interval is printed for this value in the prose; the repository records per-replicate fits. Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The paper prints three different round-1 binder rates and two round-2 expression rates. Section 2.4 gives round 1 as '2.5% (5/201)' and round 2 as 'a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested)'; Section 4.1 gives expression as improving 'from 73% to 94%'; Section 4.1 gives the binder percentage as rising 'from 3% in the first round to 13%'. All the printed values are recorded with their locators and none is reconciled here.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Sections 2.4, 4.1 and 4.2 Section 4.1 says Figure 8 shows 'the total number of validated binders across the 3 binding thresholds' but no section of the paper defines those three thresholds. No hit definition is therefore recorded for the Figure 8 counts, and the binding protocol's success threshold is left unstated with a reason rather than guessed.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1; Figure 8 caption Methods, coverage and source BindCraft with helical loss -2.0 in Adaptyv round 2: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI affinity uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-bli-affinity Aggregation: Not reported Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 3.1: 'One of those designs bound with 82 nM affinity to the EGFR target, making it the tightest binding de novo binder in R2'
Configuration: Cradle lead optimisation of a cetuximab single-chain variable fragment	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI affinity Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	1.21 nM Dissociation constant (KD for EGFR by BLI of the overall competition winner, an optimised cetuximab scFv) nanomolar · lower Uncertainty: Not reported by the source: No interval is printed for this value in the prose; the repository records per-replicate fits. Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The paper prints three different round-1 binder rates and two round-2 expression rates. Section 2.4 gives round 1 as '2.5% (5/201)' and round 2 as 'a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested)'; Section 4.1 gives expression as improving 'from 73% to 94%'; Section 4.1 gives the binder percentage as rising 'from 3% in the first round to 13%'. All the printed values are recorded with their locators and none is reconciled here.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Sections 2.4, 4.1 and 4.2 Section 4.1 says Figure 8 shows 'the total number of validated binders across the 3 binding thresholds' but no section of the paper defines those three thresholds. No hit definition is therefore recorded for the Figure 8 counts, and the binding protocol's success threshold is left unstated with a reason rather than guessed.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1; Figure 8 caption Methods, coverage and source Cradle lead optimisation in Adaptyv round 2: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI affinity uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-bli-affinity Aggregation: Not reported Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025); Adaptyv EGFR design competition round 2 results repository · Section 3.2: 'The overall winner of the competition (by binding affinity), and the winner of R2, was the ML-guided lead optimization strategy of Cradle, with a binding affinity of 1.21 nM'
Configuration: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 selected submissions	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI binding screen Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	53 confirmed binders Count (designs confirmed as binders by BLI) count · higher Uncertainty: Not applicable: An exact count. Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The paper prints three different round-1 binder rates and two round-2 expression rates. Section 2.4 gives round 1 as '2.5% (5/201)' and round 2 as 'a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested)'; Section 4.1 gives expression as improving 'from 73% to 94%'; Section 4.1 gives the binder percentage as rising 'from 3% in the first round to 13%'. All the printed values are recorded with their locators and none is reconciled here.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Sections 2.4, 4.1 and 4.2 Section 4.1 says Figure 8 shows 'the total number of validated binders across the 3 binding thresholds' but no section of the paper defines those three thresholds. No hit definition is therefore recorded for the Figure 8 counts, and the binding protocol's success threshold is left unstated with a reason rather than guessed.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1; Figure 8 caption Methods, coverage and source Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 binding rate uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-bli-binding Aggregation: Not reported Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 2.4: 'R2 saw a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested) as well as a much higher binding rate with 53 confirmed binders'
Configuration: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 selected submissions	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition cell-free expression rate Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	94% Proportion (designs expressing above the 0.02 microgram per millilitre threshold, out of designs selected for testing) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source: No interval is printed. Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The paper prints three different round-1 binder rates and two round-2 expression rates. Section 2.4 gives round 1 as '2.5% (5/201)' and round 2 as 'a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested)'; Section 4.1 gives expression as improving 'from 73% to 94%'; Section 4.1 gives the binder percentage as rising 'from 3% in the first round to 13%'. All the printed values are recorded with their locators and none is reconciled here.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Sections 2.4, 4.1 and 4.2 Section 4.1 says Figure 8 shows 'the total number of validated binders across the 3 binding thresholds' but no section of the paper defines those three thresholds. No hit definition is therefore recorded for the Figure 8 counts, and the binding protocol's success threshold is left unstated with a reason rather than guessed.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1; Figure 8 caption Methods, coverage and source Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 expression rate uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-expression Aggregation: Not reported Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1: 'We observed an improvement in the number of designs expressed, from 73% to 94%'
Configuration: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 selected submissions	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition cell-free expression rate Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	95% Proportion (designs expressing above the 0.02 microgram per millilitre threshold, out of designs selected for testing) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source: No interval is printed. Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The paper prints three different round-1 binder rates and two round-2 expression rates. Section 2.4 gives round 1 as '2.5% (5/201)' and round 2 as 'a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested)'; Section 4.1 gives expression as improving 'from 73% to 94%'; Section 4.1 gives the binder percentage as rising 'from 3% in the first round to 13%'. All the printed values are recorded with their locators and none is reconciled here.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Sections 2.4, 4.1 and 4.2 Section 4.1 says Figure 8 shows 'the total number of validated binders across the 3 binding thresholds' but no section of the paper defines those three thresholds. No hit definition is therefore recorded for the Figure 8 counts, and the binding protocol's success threshold is left unstated with a reason rather than guessed.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1; Figure 8 caption Methods, coverage and source Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 expression rate uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-expression Aggregation: Not reported Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 2.4: 'R2 saw a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested)'
Configuration: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 selected submissions	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI binding screen Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 tested designs	13% Hit rate (designs confirmed as binders by BLI, out of designs selected for testing; the sentence gives round 1 as 3%, which does not reconcile with the 2.5% (5/201) in Section 2.4) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source: No interval is printed. Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The paper prints three different round-1 binder rates and two round-2 expression rates. Section 2.4 gives round 1 as '2.5% (5/201)' and round 2 as 'a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested)'; Section 4.1 gives expression as improving 'from 73% to 94%'; Section 4.1 gives the binder percentage as rising 'from 3% in the first round to 13%'. All the printed values are recorded with their locators and none is reconciled here.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Sections 2.4, 4.1 and 4.2 Section 4.1 says Figure 8 shows 'the total number of validated binders across the 3 binding thresholds' but no section of the paper defines those three thresholds. No hit definition is therefore recorded for the Figure 8 counts, and the binding protocol's success threshold is left unstated with a reason rather than guessed.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1; Figure 8 caption Methods, coverage and source Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 binding rate uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-bli-binding Aggregation: Not reported Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1: 'Another exciting improvement has been in the percentage of successful binders to EGFR, from 3% in the first round to 13% (Figure 8)'

Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6.

Research readiness

0 of 4 readiness checks met. These checks assess whether the evidence supports a reproducible investigation; a source-checked score alone does not meet them.

Readiness checks, gaps and artifacts

Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6 · Evidence verified: Not verified

Evidence incomplete

Replay metrics

Exact outcomes, predictions, identifiers and evaluator are connected.

Missing or unresolved evidence

No verified artifact manifest is linked to this exact record.
File checksums match the recorded files: not yet verified
Predictions are matched to the right samples: not yet verified
Score meaning and direction are confirmed: not yet verified
Metrics are recomputed from the saved predictions: not yet verified

Verified: Not verified

Evidence incomplete

Investigate discrepancies

Replay evidence includes annotations and an assessment of dependence. Unknown independence permits descriptive analysis only.

Missing or unresolved evidence

No verified artifact manifest is linked to this exact record.
File checksums match the recorded files: not yet verified
Predictions are matched to the right samples: not yet verified
Score meaning and direction are confirmed: not yet verified
Metrics are recomputed from the saved predictions: not yet verified
Sample annotations are recorded: not yet verified
Dependence between samples is assessed: not yet verified

Verified: Not verified

Evidence incomplete

Run locally

A pinned recipe describes the inputs, environment and resource requirements.

Missing or unresolved evidence

No verified artifact manifest is linked to this exact record.
File checksums match the recorded files: not yet verified
Predictions are matched to the right samples: not yet verified
Score meaning and direction are confirmed: not yet verified
A pinned run recipe exists: not yet verified
Compute requirements are estimated: not yet verified

Verified: Not verified

Evidence incomplete

Validate independently

Separate data and exposure records support an independent test.

Missing or unresolved evidence

No verified artifact manifest is linked to this exact record.
File checksums match the recorded files: not yet verified
Predictions are matched to the right samples: not yet verified
Score meaning and direction are confirmed: not yet verified
Independent validation data exist: not yet verified
Overlap with training data is checked: not yet verified

Verified: Not verified

Readiness describes the evidence in this release. Availability on your computer is checked separately when an investigation runs. Existing data exposure can prevent independent validation even when files are available.

Artifacts and reproduction

No verified artifact manifest is connected to this record yet. The gaps above identify what is needed before analysis can begin.

Dataset and evaluation context

A dataset supplies biological observations. The evaluation protocol defines how those observations are split, used and scored.

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.

22 evidence rows matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6
Property and statement	Original source and location	Review and provenance
Access Data under ODbL; per-design rows in results/result_summary.csv at commit fc91b91ddc367830b755b215dbc69669675ad6a0 Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Sections 2.2 and 2.4; results/result_summary.csv Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.access` Source artifact SHA-256: `17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f` Hash scope: SHA-256 of one retrieval of a mutable web page. The hash describes that retrieval, not a stable artifact. Inspected artifact
Access Data under ODbL; per-design rows in results/result_summary.csv at commit fc91b91ddc367830b755b215dbc69669675ad6a0 Context-only references	Adaptyv EGFR design competition round 2 results repository Original source ↗ Sections 2.2 and 2.4; results/result_summary.csv Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: commit fc91b91ddc367830b755b215dbc69669675ad6a0 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:02:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Audit details Field: `attributes.access` Source artifact SHA-256: `b98dd231fa663e10e2768ad0cb7c8b33ba993bc809bd6168390ac87120ce3b7b` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Archive member: results/result_summary.csv at commit fc91b91ddc367830b755b215dbc69669675ad6a0 Inspected artifact
Assay Cell-free expression, label-free expression quantification, then multi-cycle kinetic BLI against EGFR at 1000 nM to 10 nM, in duplicate Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Sections 2.2 and 2.4; results/result_summary.csv Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.assay` Source artifact SHA-256: `17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f` Hash scope: SHA-256 of one retrieval of a mutable web page. The hash describes that retrieval, not a stable artifact. Inspected artifact
Assay Cell-free expression, label-free expression quantification, then multi-cycle kinetic BLI against EGFR at 1000 nM to 10 nM, in duplicate Context-only references	Adaptyv EGFR design competition round 2 results repository Original source ↗ Sections 2.2 and 2.4; results/result_summary.csv Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: commit fc91b91ddc367830b755b215dbc69669675ad6a0 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:02:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Audit details Field: `attributes.assay` Source artifact SHA-256: `b98dd231fa663e10e2768ad0cb7c8b33ba993bc809bd6168390ac87120ce3b7b` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Archive member: results/result_summary.csv at commit fc91b91ddc367830b755b215dbc69669675ad6a0 Inspected artifact
Population 400 selected designs from 1,131 submissions by 130 participants Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Sections 2.2 and 2.4; results/result_summary.csv Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.population` Source artifact SHA-256: `17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f` Hash scope: SHA-256 of one retrieval of a mutable web page. The hash describes that retrieval, not a stable artifact. Inspected artifact
Population 400 selected designs from 1,131 submissions by 130 participants Context-only references	Adaptyv EGFR design competition round 2 results repository Original source ↗ Sections 2.2 and 2.4; results/result_summary.csv Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: commit fc91b91ddc367830b755b215dbc69669675ad6a0 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:02:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Audit details Field: `attributes.population` Source artifact SHA-256: `b98dd231fa663e10e2768ad0cb7c8b33ba993bc809bd6168390ac87120ce3b7b` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Archive member: results/result_summary.csv at commit fc91b91ddc367830b755b215dbc69669675ad6a0 Inspected artifact
Reported name R2 Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Sections 2.2 and 2.4; results/result_summary.csv Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.reported_name` Source artifact SHA-256: `17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f` Hash scope: SHA-256 of one retrieval of a mutable web page. The hash describes that retrieval, not a stable artifact. Inspected artifact
Reported name R2 Context-only references	Adaptyv EGFR design competition round 2 results repository Original source ↗ Sections 2.2 and 2.4; results/result_summary.csv Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: commit fc91b91ddc367830b755b215dbc69669675ad6a0 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:02:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Audit details Field: `attributes.reported_name` Source artifact SHA-256: `b98dd231fa663e10e2768ad0cb7c8b33ba993bc809bd6168390ac87120ce3b7b` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Archive member: results/result_summary.csv at commit fc91b91ddc367830b755b215dbc69669675ad6a0 Inspected artifact
Repository https://github.com/adaptyvbio/egfr_competition_2 Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Sections 2.2 and 2.4; results/result_summary.csv Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.repository` Source artifact SHA-256: `17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f` Hash scope: SHA-256 of one retrieval of a mutable web page. The hash describes that retrieval, not a stable artifact. Inspected artifact
Repository https://github.com/adaptyvbio/egfr_competition_2 Context-only references	Adaptyv EGFR design competition round 2 results repository Original source ↗ Sections 2.2 and 2.4; results/result_summary.csv Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: commit fc91b91ddc367830b755b215dbc69669675ad6a0 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:02:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Audit details Field: `attributes.repository` Source artifact SHA-256: `b98dd231fa663e10e2768ad0cb7c8b33ba993bc809bd6168390ac87120ce3b7b` Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Archive member: results/result_summary.csv at commit fc91b91ddc367830b755b215dbc69669675ad6a0 Inspected artifact

How to read the evidence

Sources and history

Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6 · Record review: source checked

2 source records and release history

Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Original source · bioRxiv preprint version 1
Adaptyv EGFR design competition round 2 results repository · Original source · commit fc91b91ddc367830b755b215dbc69669675ad6a0

Download this release (gzip)

Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: uc-binder-20261022-data-adaptyv-egfr-r2

areas: proteins-complexes; protein-structure
contexts: research
access: Data under ODbL; per-design rows in results/result_summary.csv at commit fc91b91ddc367830b755b215dbc69669675ad6a0
assay: Cell-free expression, label-free expression quantification, then multi-cycle kinetic BLI against EGFR at 1000 nM to 10 nM, in duplicate
population: 400 selected designs from 1,131 submissions by 130 participants
reported name: R2
repository: https://github.com/adaptyvbio/egfr_competition_2
review: artifact sha256: 17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f; method: source-hash-verification; independent-cell-check; ai-assisted-source-review; method note: Re-downloaded (HTTP 200, 493,217 bytes, the same byte count as the pinned retrieval) but the SHA-256 differs, as expected for a mutable bioRxiv page whose hash describes one retrieval. Every extracted value and every quoted sentence was then located verbatim in the new retrieval, so the difference is in page furniture and not in the evidence. One section attribution and one quotation were corrected.; note: Reviewed in docs/reviews/use-cases/binder-2026-10-22.md. Automated AI review of the source transcription only; it is not human scientific review and nothing here was reproduced experimentally.; retrieval url: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.04.17.648362v1.full; reviewed at: 2026-10-22T15:00:00Z; reviewer: claude; reviewer note: Claude review agent, independent of the extraction agent; no human review claimed
scope note: results/result_summary.csv holds 402 data rows against the 400 tested designs the paper states.
source locator: Sections 2.2 and 2.4; results/result_summary.csv
total: 400
version: Adaptyv EGFR Binder Design Competition round 2, results revealed December 2024

Related records

Suggest a correction