Published comparison transcribed from the pinned source; not reproduced.
1 evaluation · 3 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.
Protocol: Three-category CNV classification, per-class agreement on duplications (Zhang et al. Table 4, DUP) · Dataset: Expert-classified ACMG CNV benchmark (Zhang et al. 2026, 3,031 CNVs)
Sorted by Recall (per-class recall for reference class benign (benign and likely benign merged), three-category scheme; printed as 'Accuracy') (higher 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 | Recall (per-class recall for reference class benign (benign and likely benign merged), three-category scheme; printed as 'Accuracy') | Recall (per-class recall for reference class pathogenic (pathogenic and likely pathogenic merged), three-category scheme; printed as 'Accuracy') | Recall (per-class recall for reference class variant of uncertain significance, three-category scheme; printed as 'Accuracy') |
|---|---|---|---|
| ClassifyCNV (Zhang et al. 2026)Evaluation | 49.9% | 52.4% | 94.9% |
Applied filters: All linked evaluations
Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-11-02-a7f03c9e55a5.
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.
Release 2026-11-02-a7f03c9e55a5 · Evidence verified: Not verified
Exact outcomes, predictions, identifiers and evaluator are connected.
Missing or unresolved evidence
Verified: Not verified
Replay evidence includes annotations and an assessment of dependence. Unknown independence permits descriptive analysis only.
Missing or unresolved evidence
Verified: Not verified
A pinned recipe describes the inputs, environment and resource requirements.
Missing or unresolved evidence
Verified: Not verified
Separate data and exposure records support an independent test.
Missing or unresolved evidence
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.
No verified artifact manifest is connected to this record yet. The gaps above identify what is needed before analysis can begin.
Three-category CNV classification, per-class agreement on duplications (Zhang et al. Table 4, DUP)
Metadata review: source checked. Unreported conditions prevent automatic comparisons.
No execution recipe has been verified for this exact configuration and evaluation. A benchmark's general instructions may use different inputs, splits or model settings.
Reproducing this published result requires matching its model configuration, data, split and scorer. Source checking or a successful smoke test does not establish score reproduction.
Source checking verifies the cited claim or transcription. It does not establish independent reproduction.
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.
18 evidence rows matching the loaded filters
| Property and statement | Original source and location | Review and provenance |
|---|---|---|
| Comparison: adaptation Not reported Context-only references | Can automated copy number variation pathogenicity prediction tools replace manual review under the ACMG framework? A clinical validation (Zhang, Zhang and Chen, Global Medical Genetics 2026) Table 4 column or row 'ClassifyCNV' Version: Global Medical Genetics 13:100096 (2026), published online 2026-03-06; PMC13018948 full-text XML | missing or unspecified No individual claim review recorded independent paper Audit detailsField: Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record |
| Comparison: aggregation Per reference class Context-only references | Can automated copy number variation pathogenicity prediction tools replace manual review under the ACMG framework? A clinical validation (Zhang, Zhang and Chen, Global Medical Genetics 2026) Table 4 column or row 'ClassifyCNV' Version: Global Medical Genetics 13:100096 (2026), published online 2026-03-06; PMC13018948 full-text XML | not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Audit detailsField: Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record |
| Comparison: budget Not reported Context-only references | Can automated copy number variation pathogenicity prediction tools replace manual review under the ACMG framework? A clinical validation (Zhang, Zhang and Chen, Global Medical Genetics 2026) Table 4 column or row 'ClassifyCNV' Version: Global Medical Genetics 13:100096 (2026), published online 2026-03-06; PMC13018948 full-text XML | missing or unspecified No individual claim review recorded independent paper Audit detailsField: Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record |
| Comparison: dataset version As assembled by Zhang et al. 2026 Context-only references | Can automated copy number variation pathogenicity prediction tools replace manual review under the ACMG framework? A clinical validation (Zhang, Zhang and Chen, Global Medical Genetics 2026) Table 4 column or row 'ClassifyCNV' Version: Global Medical Genetics 13:100096 (2026), published online 2026-03-06; PMC13018948 full-text XML | not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Audit detailsField: Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record |
| Comparison: inputs CNV coordinates (hg38) and type Context-only references | Can automated copy number variation pathogenicity prediction tools replace manual review under the ACMG framework? A clinical validation (Zhang, Zhang and Chen, Global Medical Genetics 2026) Table 4 column or row 'ClassifyCNV' Version: Global Medical Genetics 13:100096 (2026), published online 2026-03-06; PMC13018948 full-text XML | not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Audit detailsField: Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record |
| Comparison: metric implementation Share of reference-class CNVs assigned to the same merged class Context-only references | Can automated copy number variation pathogenicity prediction tools replace manual review under the ACMG framework? A clinical validation (Zhang, Zhang and Chen, Global Medical Genetics 2026) Table 4 column or row 'ClassifyCNV' Version: Global Medical Genetics 13:100096 (2026), published online 2026-03-06; PMC13018948 full-text XML | not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Audit detailsField: Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record |
| Comparison: population 2,125 duplications Context-only references | Can automated copy number variation pathogenicity prediction tools replace manual review under the ACMG framework? A clinical validation (Zhang, Zhang and Chen, Global Medical Genetics 2026) Table 4 column or row 'ClassifyCNV' Version: Global Medical Genetics 13:100096 (2026), published online 2026-03-06; PMC13018948 full-text XML | not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Audit detailsField: Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record |
| Comparison: protocol id cnv-20261011-zhang2026-protocol-three-category-duplications Context-only references | Can automated copy number variation pathogenicity prediction tools replace manual review under the ACMG framework? A clinical validation (Zhang, Zhang and Chen, Global Medical Genetics 2026) Table 4 column or row 'ClassifyCNV' Version: Global Medical Genetics 13:100096 (2026), published online 2026-03-06; PMC13018948 full-text XML | not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Audit detailsField: Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record |
| Comparison: split No split Context-only references | Can automated copy number variation pathogenicity prediction tools replace manual review under the ACMG framework? A clinical validation (Zhang, Zhang and Chen, Global Medical Genetics 2026) Table 4 column or row 'ClassifyCNV' Version: Global Medical Genetics 13:100096 (2026), published online 2026-03-06; PMC13018948 full-text XML | not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Audit detailsField: Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record |
| Origin independent_paper Context-only references | Can automated copy number variation pathogenicity prediction tools replace manual review under the ACMG framework? A clinical validation (Zhang, Zhang and Chen, Global Medical Genetics 2026) Table 4 column or row 'ClassifyCNV' Version: Global Medical Genetics 13:100096 (2026), published online 2026-03-06; PMC13018948 full-text XML | not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Audit detailsField: Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record |
Release 2026-11-02-a7f03c9e55a5 · Record review: source checked
Stable ID: cnv-20261011-zhang2026-eval-three-category-duplications-classifycnv