cfMethyl-Seq random-split four-cancer detection
Scoped author-reported evidence candidate; no clinical recommendation.
Overview
Scoped author-reported evidence candidate; no clinical recommendation.
Consult the linked sources for architecture or protocol details. Missing evidence is not evidence of a missing capability.
1 recorded evaluation, 1 metric rows. A comparison chart has not yet been validated for these results. The table retains the individual findings and their sources.
Results
Results are available, but no reviewed comparison panel is linked in this release.
All evaluations
1 evaluation · 1 result. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.
Filter evaluations
Applied filters: All linked evaluations
| Tested configuration | Protocol and dataset | Finding | Evidence and details |
|---|---|---|---|
| Configuration: cfMethyl-Seq stacked ensemble (2022) | Protocol: cfMethyl-Seq random-split four-cancer detection Dataset: cfMethyl-Seq 408 QC-passing plasma samples | 80.7% sensitivity_at_97_9_percent_specificity percent · higher Uncertainty: 95% CI 68.6%–90.7% Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Author-reported evaluation · Source checkedMethods, coverage and sourcecfMethyl-Seq all-stage cancer detection amp-protocol-cfmethyl-randomsplit-detection Aggregation: Not reported cfMethyl-Seq cancer detection primary paper · PMC9522828 XML Par17, Results Cancer detection, Fig3a; split Par16; configuration Par37 |
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
- 1
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 Executed but unpublished runs and private review status are not included.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
| Property and statement | Original source and location | Review 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 history
- cfMethyl-Seq cancer detection primary paper · Original source · 2022 version of record, corrected competing-interest disclosure in 2024
Technical metadata and extraction receipts
Stable ID: amp-protocol-cfmethyl-randomsplit-detection
- areas
- dna-genomes
- contexts
- clinical_research
- control
- 191 noncancer participants include noncancer diseases; not exclusively healthy controls. Individual marker models studied separately.
- limitations
- Random-split validation is not population screening or prospective clinical utility.; No foundation-model evaluation.; Separate independent WGBS validation cannot directly validate the level-2 random forest across platforms.
- missing metadata
- split seeds: Unreported
- protocol
- 10 random train/test splits, fit stacked classifier; mean held-out sensitivity at one false-positive noncancer sample (97.9% specificity); author-reported 95% CI across runs
- version
- 2022 Par16–17 / Fig3
Related records
- protocol: cfMethyl-Seq all-stage cancer detection