Hou et al. 2024 Jiang cohort cross-validation, liver cancer (Table S2)
Fragmentation pattern comparison by Hou et al. 2024.
Overview
Fragmentation pattern comparison by Hou et al. 2024.
Consult the linked sources for architecture or protocol details. Missing evidence is not evidence of a missing capability.
10 recorded evaluations, 10 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
10 evaluations · 10 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.
Filter evaluations
Applied filters: All linked evaluations
Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-10-10-7b8f80935f90.
Methods and evaluation design
Procedure, tasks and evaluated configurations
Recorded evaluations
Each evaluation records what was tested and under which conditions.
- EDM (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- coverage (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- end (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- length (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- FSD (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- FSR (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- IFS (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- OCF (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- PFE (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- WPS (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
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
- External evaluations
- 9
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 Executed but unpublished runs and private review status are not included.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 (gzip) · Model evaluation matrix (gzip) · Source table (gzip) · Release and checksums (gzip)
Coverage is derived from release 2026-10-10-7b8f80935f90. 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
Release 2026-10-10-7b8f80935f90 · Record review: source checked
2 source records and release history
- Systematically Evaluating Cell-Free DNA Fragmentation Patterns for Cancer Diagnosis and Enhanced Cancer Detection via Integrating Multiple Fragmentation Patterns · Original source · Advanced Science 11(30):e2308243, published 2024-06-17; PMC11321639 full-text XML
- Hou et al. 2024, Supporting Information workbook (Tables S1-S15) · Original source · ADVS-11-2308243-s001.xlsx, PMC open-access copy PMC11321639.1
Technical metadata and extraction receipts
Stable ID: ctdnafrag-20261009-protocol-hou2024-jiang-lihc-cv-sensitivity
- areas
- dna-genomes
- contexts
- clinical_research
- protocol
- Liver cancer SVM; 10 repeats of 10-fold cross-validation. Report ROC-AUC and sensitivity at 95% and at 85% specificity.
- version
- Hou et al. 2024 Supporting Information; Methods P41, P44, P45
- metric
- auroc
- metric direction
- higher
- limitations
- Table S2 liver sensitivities are disputed: the 95% and 85% columns are identical in nine rows and 0.0009 apart in the tenth, unlike the liver rows of Tables S7 and S8.; Ten fragmentation patterns restricted to open chromatin regions, one SVM each; no tumour-fraction stratification.; The control group for the LIHC model (healthy only or all non-cancer) is not stated in the table.; IFS was defined by Hou et al.'s corresponding author (Zhou et al. 2022, ref 10), so its evaluations are author-reported; the other nine patterns are independent re-implementations.
- source locator
- Supporting Information Table S2 rows 83-92; Experimental Section P41, P44, P45
Related records
- uses data: Jiang et al. 2018 plasma WGS, 90 liver cancer and 135 non-cancer (as used by Hou et al. 2024)
- assessment: EDM (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- assessment: coverage (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- assessment: end (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- assessment: length (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- assessment: FSD (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- assessment: FSR (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- assessment: IFS (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- assessment: OCF (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- assessment: PFE (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- assessment: WPS (open chromatin), Jiang cohort liver cancer cross-validation
- assessed by: Select a plasma ctDNA fragmentomics detection workflow