rewirebio.iobenchmarks
Protocol

NCH clinically relevant fusion ascertainment

NCH clinically relevant fusion ascertainment; bounded primary-source AMP candidate.

2 evaluations · 4 results

Overview

NCH clinically relevant fusion ascertainment; bounded primary-source AMP candidate.

Consult the linked sources for architecture or protocol details. Missing evidence is not evidence of a missing capability.

2 recorded evaluations, 4 metric rows. A comparison chart has not yet been validated for these results. The table retains the individual findings and their sources.

View coverage and remaining gaps across all benchmarks

Results

Results are available, but no reviewed comparison panel is linked in this release.

All evaluations

2 evaluations · 4 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: ArribaProtocol: NCH clinically relevant fusion ascertainment
Dataset: Nationwide Children hospital pediatric cancer/hematologic cohort
59 clinically relevant fusions called
fusions · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Arriba NCH clinical-ascertainment evaluation

name: NCH clinically relevant fusion ascertainment; proposed id: amp-oncology-rna-20261007-protocol-enfusion-nch-clinical; version: 2021 article Table 1

Aggregation: Not reported

Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 1, Arriba row, Sensitivity column (JATS Tab1)
Configuration: ArribaProtocol: NCH clinically relevant fusion ascertainment
Dataset: Nationwide Children hospital pediatric cancer/hematologic cohort
88.1% sensitivity among ensemble-ascertained clinically relevant fusions
% · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Arriba NCH clinical-ascertainment evaluation

name: NCH clinically relevant fusion ascertainment; proposed id: amp-oncology-rna-20261007-protocol-enfusion-nch-clinical; version: 2021 article Table 1

Aggregation: Not reported

Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 1, Arriba row, Sensitivity column (JATS Tab1)
Configuration: STAR-FusionProtocol: NCH clinically relevant fusion ascertainment
Dataset: Nationwide Children hospital pediatric cancer/hematologic cohort
63 clinically relevant fusions called
fusions · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

STAR-Fusion NCH clinical-ascertainment evaluation

name: NCH clinically relevant fusion ascertainment; proposed id: amp-oncology-rna-20261007-protocol-enfusion-nch-clinical; version: 2021 article Table 1

Aggregation: Not reported

Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 1, STAR-Fusion row, Sensitivity column (JATS Tab1)
Configuration: STAR-FusionProtocol: NCH clinically relevant fusion ascertainment
Dataset: Nationwide Children hospital pediatric cancer/hematologic cohort
94% sensitivity among ensemble-ascertained clinically relevant fusions
% · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

STAR-Fusion NCH clinical-ascertainment evaluation

name: NCH clinically relevant fusion ascertainment; proposed id: amp-oncology-rna-20261007-protocol-enfusion-nch-clinical; version: 2021 article Table 1

Aggregation: Not reported

Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 1, STAR-Fusion row, Sensitivity (clinically relevant fusions called out of 67) column (JATS Tab1)

Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-10-07-1448159e6a81.

Methods and evaluation design

Procedure, tasks and evaluated configurations

Recorded evaluations

Each evaluation records what was tested and under which conditions.

Baseline coverage

Reference methods help show what a model adds beyond simple controls. We track a null control and a conventional method for each protocol.

0 of 2 active baseline roles have published Rewire measurements in this release. Measurements on a selected protocol do not establish coverage of an entire suite.

No execution recipe linked to this protocol. Recipe availability does not establish a completed evaluation.

External evaluations
2

Literature evidence is not a Rewire measurement. Executed but unpublished runs and private review status are not included.

Null control

Proposed control: requires review

Select a task-valid null control after reviewing inputs and metric

Protocol-specific applicability, permitted inputs, access, split, evaluator and execution requirements need review before implementation or execution.

This is a suggested selection rule, not a validated method or a measured score.

Conventional reference

Proposed control: requires review

Select an upstream conventional reference after reviewing the full protocol

Protocol-specific applicability, permitted inputs, access, split, evaluator and execution requirements need review before implementation or execution.

This is a suggested selection rule, not a validated method or a measured score.

Protocol coverage CSV · Model evaluation matrix · Source table · Release and checksums

Coverage is derived from release 2026-10-07-1448159e6a81. Source citations describe the original records; they do not validate an unreviewed baseline proposal. No results have been generated by this audit.

Run instructions

No runnable recipe has been reviewed for this protocol. Dataset access, model requirements, licences and compute requirements must be checked against its sources before execution.

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 2026-10-07-1448159e6a81
Property and statementOriginal source and locationReview and provenance

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

Sources and history

View linked audit checks and correction history

Release 2026-10-07-1448159e6a81 · Record review: source checked

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

Stable ID: amp-oncology-rna-20261007-protocol-enfusion-nch-clinical

areas
dna-genomes
method types
conventional_pipeline
missing metadata
None recorded
scope note
Ascertainment is from the optimized EnFusion pipeline; denominator is not an independent exhaustive truth set. Only a subset orthogonally confirmed; the endpoint does not quantify novel fusion generalization or patient outcomes. Do not combine with duplicate Seraseq measurements.
task
67 clinically relevant fusions in 229 pediatric cancer/hematologic samples
version
2021 article Table 1
Related records

Suggest a correction