Method

Crowdsourced EGFR binder submissions (Adaptyv competition)

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 pooled set of EGFR binder designs submitted by competition entrants, each produced by a workflow the entrant declared and the organisers curated into one of five categories.

1 evaluation · 3 results 2 configurations with further results

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

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.

Further results on linked records

2 linked records have results that are not included above, because no reviewed claim yet ties the link to this method. Each record keeps its own settings and evaluations, and its scores are on its own page.

Adaptyv EGFR competition round 1 selected submissions Configuration · configuration · 2 evaluations · 4 results
Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 selected submissions Configuration · configuration · 2 evaluations · 4 results

Use this method

How it works, versions and access

Strengths, limitations and unresolved questions

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.

0 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

No evidence rows match these filters. Choose another scope or clear the search.

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-method-adaptyv-crowd-submissions

areas: proteins-complexes; protein-structure
contexts: research
method types: specialist
identity scope: A pooled population of designs from many workflows, not a single method. Method identity is the entrant's own declaration.
provenance note: Created to hold the Adaptyv competition's whole-round funnel counts, which are not attributable to any one design method.
reported name: competition submissions
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: Sections 2.2 and 4.2
version: Adaptyv EGFR Binder Design Competition rounds 1 and 2

Related records

configuration of: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 1 selected submissions
configuration of: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 2 selected submissions
system: Adaptyv EGFR competition total binders across both rounds

Suggest a correction