rewire.itbenchmarks
Evaluation

abdelaal baron human svm rejection

Author-reported evaluation; no new execution.

Research readiness

These checks assess whether the evidence supports a reproducible investigation. A source-checked score alone does not meet these requirements.

Release 2026-10-06-161b59a1d02c · 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.
  • artifact hashes: verification is missing
  • join integrity: verification is missing
  • score semantics: verification is missing
  • metric replay: verification is missing

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.
  • artifact hashes: verification is missing
  • join integrity: verification is missing
  • score semantics: verification is missing
  • metric replay: verification is missing
  • annotations: verification is missing
  • dependence: verification is missing

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.
  • artifact hashes: verification is missing
  • join integrity: verification is missing
  • score semantics: verification is missing
  • recipe pinned: verification is missing
  • resource estimate: verification is missing

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.
  • artifact hashes: verification is missing
  • join integrity: verification is missing
  • score semantics: verification is missing
  • independent validation: verification is missing
  • overlap checked: verification is missing

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.

Read reviewed discrepancy investigations

Evaluation results

1 evaluation · 2 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

Filter evaluations

Applied filters: All linked evaluations

Exact evaluated configurations and original reported results
Tested configurationProtocol and datasetFindingEvidence and details
Configuration: SVMrejection — Abdelaal et al. 2019 Table 1Protocol: Abdelaal et al. 2019 intra-dataset 5-fold CV: Baron Human pancreatic dataset
Dataset: Baron Human pancreatic scRNA-seq dataset (Abdelaal et al. 2019, Table 2)
0.991 median-f1
fraction · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Author-reported evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

abdelaal baron human svm rejection

Not reported

Aggregation: Not reported

A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data · Quoted verbatim, Results, "All classifiers perform well in intra-dataset experiments": "for the Baron Human dataset, the median F1-score for SVM rejection, scmapcell, scPred, and SVM is 0.991, 0.984, 0.981, and 0.980, respectively (Fig. 1a)." Fig. 1a, SVM rejection row.
Configuration: SVMrejection — Abdelaal et al. 2019 Table 1Protocol: Abdelaal et al. 2019 intra-dataset 5-fold CV: Baron Human pancreatic dataset
Dataset: Baron Human pancreatic scRNA-seq dataset (Abdelaal et al. 2019, Table 2)
1.5% pct-unlabeled
percent · unknown

Uncertainty: Not reported

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Author-reported evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

abdelaal baron human svm rejection

Not reported

Aggregation: Not reported

A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data · Quoted verbatim, same location: "SVM rejection, scmapcell, and scPred assigned 1.5%, 4.2%, and 10.8% of the cells, respectively, as unlabeled while SVM (without rejection) classified 100% of the cells with a median F1-score of 0.98 (Fig. 1b)." Fig. 1b, SVM rejection row.

Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-10-06-161b59a1d02c.

Evaluation procedure

Not reported

Configuration
SVMrejection — Abdelaal et al. 2019 Table 1
Protocol
Abdelaal et al. 2019 intra-dataset 5-fold CV: Baron Human pancreatic dataset
Dataset
Baron Human pancreatic scRNA-seq dataset (Abdelaal et al. 2019, Table 2)
origin
Author-reported evaluation
configuration
Not reported
protocol id
ucc-research-protocol-abdelaal-baron-human-intra
dataset version
Abdelaal et al. 2019 Table 2, Baron (Human)
split
Intra-dataset stratified 5-fold cross-validation; identical folds across classifiers
population
Table 2 dataset size: 8,569 cells, 14 cell populations (13 after <10-cell filtering). This is the dataset-size figure, not independently confirmed as the exact scored denominator for this evaluation's result(s); see the linked protocol's limitations.
aggregation
metric-specific; inspect result

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

Reproduction

Split
Intra-dataset stratified 5-fold cross-validation; identical folds across classifiers
Adaptation
Not reported
Scoring implementation
Not reported

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.

12 evidence rows matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-10-06-161b59a1d02c
Property and statementOriginal source and locationReview and provenance
attributes.comparison.aggregation
metric-specific; inspect result
Context-only references
A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z; published article XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-06T23:28:54Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.aggregation

Source artifact SHA-256: Not recorded

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

attributes.comparison.dataset_version
Abdelaal et al. 2019 Table 2, Baron (Human)
Context-only references
A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z; published article XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-06T23:28:54Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.dataset_version

Source artifact SHA-256: Not recorded

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

attributes.comparison.population
Table 2 dataset size: 8,569 cells, 14 cell populations (13 after <10-cell filtering). This is the dataset-size figure, not independently confirmed as the exact scored denominator for this evaluation's result(s); see the linked protocol's limitations.
Context-only references
A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z; published article XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-06T23:28:54Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.population

Source artifact SHA-256: Not recorded

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

attributes.comparison.protocol_id
ucc-research-protocol-abdelaal-baron-human-intra
Context-only references
A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z; published article XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-06T23:28:54Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.protocol_id

Source artifact SHA-256: Not recorded

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

attributes.comparison.split
Intra-dataset stratified 5-fold cross-validation; identical folds across classifiers
Context-only references
A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z; published article XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-06T23:28:54Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.split

Source artifact SHA-256: Not recorded

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

attributes.fold_count
5
Context-only references
A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z; published article XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-06T23:28:54Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.fold_count

Source artifact SHA-256: Not recorded

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

attributes.origin
author_reported
Context-only references
A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z; published article XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-06T23:28:54Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.origin

Source artifact SHA-256: Not recorded

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

description
Author-reported evaluation; no new execution.
Context-only references
A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z; published article XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-06T23:28:54Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: description

Source artifact SHA-256: Not recorded

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

Relationship: configuration
ucc-research-config-abdelaal-svm-rejection
Context-only references
A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z; published article XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-06T23:28:54Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: links:configuration:ucc-research-config-abdelaal-svm-rejection

Source artifact SHA-256: Not recorded

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

Relationship: dataset
ucc-research-data-abdelaal-baron-human
Context-only references
A comparison of automatic cell identification methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 10.1186/s13059-019-1795-z; published article XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-06T23:28:54Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: links:dataset:ucc-research-data-abdelaal-baron-human

Source artifact SHA-256: Not recorded

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

Sources and history

View linked audit checks and correction history

Release 2026-10-06-161b59a1d02c · Record review: source checked

1 source records and release historyDownload this release
Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: ucc-research-eval-abdelaal-baron-human-svm-rejection

origin
author_reported
review
method: automated_source_review; actor: Claude Sonnet cell-type-annotation-transfer evidence-research worker; reviewed at: 2026-10-06T23:28:54Z; note: Source-backed primary-text transcription of Abdelaal et al. 2019 (Genome Biology). Re-fetched directly from Europe PMC at 2026-10-06T23:28:54Z (this review pass; not the earlier bounded-window estimate), byte-identical to the already-cached copy (SHA-256 unchanged), and archived as a committed artifact at data/omics/use-case-coverage-20261006/research/artifacts/abdelaal-2019-pmc6734286-fulltext.xml.gz. No new model execution, independent experimental replication, or qualified human scientific review.
comparison
protocol id: ucc-research-protocol-abdelaal-baron-human-intra; dataset version: Abdelaal et al. 2019 Table 2, Baron (Human); split: Intra-dataset stratified 5-fold cross-validation; identical folds across classifiers; population: Table 2 dataset size: 8,569 cells, 14 cell populations (13 after <10-cell filtering). This is the dataset-size figure, not independently confirmed as the exact scored denominator for this evaluation's result(s); see the linked protocol's limitations.; aggregation: metric-specific; inspect result
fold count
5
Related records

Suggest a correction