Protocol

EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark

EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark; bounded primary-source AMP candidate.

Overview

EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark; bounded primary-source AMP candidate.

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

4 recorded evaluations, 16 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

4 evaluations · 16 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

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
Configuration: Arriba	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	13 mean Seraseq fusions identified fusions · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source Arriba evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, Arriba row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: Arriba	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	23.5 mean total fusions identified fusions · lower Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source Arriba evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, Arriba row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: Arriba	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	55.3% precision % · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source Arriba evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, Arriba row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: Arriba	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	92.9% sensitivity % · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source Arriba evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, Arriba row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: EnFusion 3 callers + filter + known fusion list	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	14 mean Seraseq fusions identified fusions · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Author-reported evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source EnFusion 3 callers + filter + known fusion list evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, EnFusion 3 callers + filter + known fusion list row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: EnFusion 3 callers + filter + known fusion list	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	14 mean total fusions identified fusions · lower Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Author-reported evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source EnFusion 3 callers + filter + known fusion list evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, EnFusion 3 callers + filter + known fusion list row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: EnFusion 3 callers + filter + known fusion list	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	100% precision % · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Author-reported evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source EnFusion 3 callers + filter + known fusion list evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, EnFusion 3 callers + filter + known fusion list row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: EnFusion 3 callers + filter + known fusion list	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	100% sensitivity % · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Author-reported evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source EnFusion 3 callers + filter + known fusion list evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, EnFusion 3 callers + filter + known fusion list row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: EnFusion 3 callers	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	14 mean Seraseq fusions identified fusions · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Author-reported evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source EnFusion 3 callers evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, EnFusion 3 callers row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: EnFusion 3 callers	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	15.5 mean total fusions identified fusions · lower Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Author-reported evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source EnFusion 3 callers evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, EnFusion 3 callers row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: EnFusion 3 callers	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	90.3% precision % · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Author-reported evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source EnFusion 3 callers evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, EnFusion 3 callers row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: EnFusion 3 callers	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	100% sensitivity % · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Author-reported evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source EnFusion 3 callers evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, EnFusion 3 callers row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: STAR-Fusion	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	14 mean Seraseq fusions identified fusions · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source STAR-Fusion evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, STAR-Fusion row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: STAR-Fusion	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	32 mean total fusions identified fusions · lower Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source STAR-Fusion evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, STAR-Fusion row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: STAR-Fusion	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	43.6% precision % · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source STAR-Fusion evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, STAR-Fusion row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)
Configuration: STAR-Fusion	Protocol: EnFusion undiluted Seraseq duplicate benchmark Dataset: Undiluted Seraseq Fusion RNA control, duplicate libraries	100% sensitivity % · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source STAR-Fusion evaluation Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors. Aggregation: Not reported Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Table 2, STAR-Fusion row, corresponding column (JATS Tab2)

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.

Author-reported evaluations: 2
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 statement	Original source and location	Review and provenance

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

All evidence (CSV)All evidence (JSONL)How to read the evidence

Sources and history

View linked audit checks and correction history

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

1 source records and release history

Discovery of clinically relevant fusions in pediatric cancer · Original source · Europe PMC fullTextXML retrieved 2026-10-07T12:25:20.810843+00:00

Download this release

Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: amp-oncology-rna-20261007-protocol-enfusion-seraseq

areas: dna-genomes
method types: conventional_pipeline
missing metadata: None recorded
scope note: The optimized known-fusion rescue uses prior knowledge of true reference fusions; 100% precision/sensitivity is an optimization-control observation, not unbiased generalization. Table2 caption v3 versus optimization narrative v2 is unresolved; dataset_version=null and automatic comparison blocked. STAR-Fusion precision 43.6% in Table2 vs 43.8% Par31; numeric candidate retains printed table value but requires disputed-result warning or omission pending resolution. All non-Seraseq fusions counted false positives although endogenous background fusions may exist. No CI or dispersion printed for Table2 rows. Clinical Table1 sensitivity is relative to 67 fusions ascertained through optimized ensemble, not independently exhaustive truth or treatment benefit.
task: Consensus ≥3 callers, with specified filtering and known fusion list rescue; Table 2 displays mean of duplicate undiluted experiments. Only 14 Seraseq fusions are positive; all others counted false positive. Comparators processed by same authors.
version: 2021 primary article Table 2

Related records

protocol: Arriba evaluation
protocol: EnFusion 3 callers evaluation
protocol: EnFusion 3 callers + filter + known fusion list evaluation
protocol: STAR-Fusion evaluation

Suggest a correction