Evaluation

Adaptyv EGFR competition total binders across both rounds

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

Third-party measurement of entrant designs, transcribed from the pinned source; not reproduced.

Evaluation results

1 evaluation · 3 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI binding screen · Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition, both rounds

Sorted by Count (binders the paper calls strong, in the tens of nanomolar range) (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	Count (binders the paper calls strong, in the tens of nanomolar range)	Count (binders with better affinity for EGFR than the cetuximab positive control)	Count (designs confirmed as binders by BLI across both rounds)
Crowdsourced EGFR binder submissions (Adaptyv competition)Evaluation	4	2	60 binders

All 3 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
Method: Crowdsourced EGFR binder submissions (Adaptyv competition)	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI binding screen Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition, both rounds	2 Count (binders with better affinity for EGFR than the cetuximab positive control) 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 total binders across both rounds 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 4.2: 'Out of these, 2 had better binding affinities than the Cetuximab control in the nanomolar range.'
Method: Crowdsourced EGFR binder submissions (Adaptyv competition)	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI binding screen Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition, both rounds	4 Count (binders the paper calls strong, in the tens of nanomolar range) 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 total binders across both rounds 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 4.2: 'with 4 of those as strong binders (in the tens of nM range)'
Method: Crowdsourced EGFR binder submissions (Adaptyv competition)	Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI binding screen Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition, both rounds	60 binders Count (designs confirmed as binders by BLI across both rounds) 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 total binders across both rounds 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 4.2: 'In total, we have amassed 60 binders, with 4 of those as strong binders (in the tens of nM range).'

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.

Evaluation procedure

Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI binding screen

Method: Crowdsourced EGFR binder submissions (Adaptyv competition)
Protocol: Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI binding screen
Dataset: Adaptyv EGFR competition, both rounds

origin: Independent external evaluation
configuration: bioRxiv v1
adaptation: Not reported
aggregation: Over the designs tested in the stated round
budget: 601 designs expressed and assayed
dataset version: Adaptyv EGFR Binder Design Competition, rounds 1 and 2
inputs: EGFR structure; entrants chose their own inputs and workflow
metric implementation: Count of designs confirmed as binders by BLI across both rounds
population: 601 selected designs from 1,857 submissions by 159 unique participants
protocol id: uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-bli-binding
split: Not reported

Metadata review: source checked. Unreported conditions prevent automatic comparisons.

Reproduction

Split: Not reported
Adaptation: Not reported
Scoring implementation: Count of designs confirmed as binders by BLI across both rounds

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.

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.

21 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
Comparison: adaptation Not reported Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Abstract; Sections 2.4 and 4.2 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	missing or unspecified No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.adaptation` 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
Comparison: aggregation Over the designs tested in the stated round Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Abstract; Sections 2.4 and 4.2 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.aggregation` 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
Comparison: budget 601 designs expressed and assayed Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Abstract; Sections 2.4 and 4.2 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.budget` 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
Comparison: dataset version Adaptyv EGFR Binder Design Competition, rounds 1 and 2 Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Abstract; Sections 2.4 and 4.2 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.dataset_version` 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
Comparison: inputs EGFR structure; entrants chose their own inputs and workflow Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Abstract; Sections 2.4 and 4.2 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.inputs` 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
Comparison: metric implementation Count of designs confirmed as binders by BLI across both rounds Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Abstract; Sections 2.4 and 4.2 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.metric_implementation` 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
Comparison: population 601 selected designs from 1,857 submissions by 159 unique participants Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Abstract; Sections 2.4 and 4.2 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.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
Comparison: protocol id uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-bli-binding Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Abstract; Sections 2.4 and 4.2 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.protocol_id` 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
Comparison: split Not reported Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Abstract; Sections 2.4 and 4.2 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	missing or unspecified No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.comparison.split` 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
Conventional baseline None. EGF and cetuximab were positive controls. Context-only references	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Abstract; Sections 2.4 and 4.2 Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit details Field: `attributes.conventional_baseline` 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

How to read the evidence

Sources and history

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

1 source record and release history

Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Original source · bioRxiv preprint version 1

Download this release (gzip)

Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: uc-binder-20261022-eval-adaptyv-both-binding

areas: proteins-complexes; protein-structure
contexts: research
comparison: adaptation: Not reported; aggregation: Over the designs tested in the stated round; budget: 601 designs expressed and assayed; dataset version: Adaptyv EGFR Binder Design Competition, rounds 1 and 2; inputs: EGFR structure; entrants chose their own inputs and workflow; metric implementation: Count of designs confirmed as binders by BLI across both rounds; population: 601 selected designs from 1,857 submissions by 159 unique participants; protocol id: uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-bli-binding; split: Not reported
conventional baseline: None. EGF and cetuximab were positive controls.
denominator: 601
endpoint: BLI-confirmed binding to EGFR
missing metadata: comparison.adaptation: note: No adaptation step; designs were submitted as they were generated.; reason: inapplicable; comparison.split: note: A design competition, not a train/test split.; reason: inapplicable
origin: independent_paper
protocol: uc-binder-20261022-protocol-adaptyv-bli-binding
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
source locator: Abstract; Sections 2.4 and 4.2
version: bioRxiv v1

Related records

Suggest a correction