rewire.itbenchmarks
Protocol

Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads (Long-read taxonomic profiling)

Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads · Table 1:. Species-level recall/precision/F 1. MetaMaps results copied from original manuscript; other tool versions reported in Methods. 200,114 reads;96 strain design,94 strains with RefSeq species representatives; average read 4,997 bp.

SourcesLightweight taxonomic profiling of long-read metagenomic datasets with Lemur and Magnet · Table 1:: Recall, Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads

7 evaluations · 21 results

Overview

Key specifications have not been extracted for this record. See the linked evaluation and sources for the reported setup.

limited source coverage · Automated source review, 2026-09-17. All specifications and missing details

Results

Each comparison retains its reviewed evaluation scope, dataset and metric. Results are shown without a pooled ranking.

Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads · Table 1:

Recall (fraction) · Higher values are better.

Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads (Long-read taxonomic profiling) · Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads

Evidence origin: Author-reported evaluation, Independent external evaluation, Result quoted from another source.

Lightweight taxonomic profiling of long-read metagenomic datasets with Lemur and Magnet · Table 1:: Recall, Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads
  • MetaMaps is quoted prior evidence, not an independent repeated run.
  • Reference databases and classifier-versus-profiler task differ.
Comparison details and limitations

Species-level recall/precision/F 1. MetaMaps results copied from original manuscript; other tool versions reported in Methods. 200,114 reads;96 strain design,94 strains with RefSeq species representatives; average read 4,997 bp.

  • No interval assigned unless printed in source cell.

Automated source review: 2026-09-17. Numerical source review does not establish independent reproduction.

Dots show point estimates. Whiskers show only explicitly defined uncertainty (standard deviation, standard error or a labelled interval); their definitions remain in Table. Unresolved uncertainty is not plotted. Differences do not establish statistical significance.

Showing 7 of 7 matching rows.

Methods and evaluation design

Procedure, tasks and evaluated configurations

How it works

Evaluation in this paper

Species-level recall/precision/F 1. MetaMaps results copied from original manuscript; other tool versions reported in Methods. 200,114 reads;96 strain design,94 strains with RefSeq species representatives; average read 4,997 bp.

SourcesLightweight taxonomic profiling of long-read metagenomic datasets with Lemur and Magnet · Table 1:: Recall, Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads

Evaluation design

Benchmarks bring together tasks and protocols. A task describes the biological question; a protocol defines a particular test.

These source-backed links do not make different protocols or scores interchangeable.

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.

No reviewed evaluations with results linked in this release.

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 2026-09-29-06401fd5b220. 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

Strengths and limitations

Strengths and considerations

No source-reviewed explanatory claims are recorded here yet.

Limitations and conditions

No source-reviewed explanatory claims are recorded here yet.

Profile review details

Primary-source transcription and separate automated review. No human sign-off or experimental reproduction.

Stable record: paper-protocol-1080592b8d6a8ce0bd

Specifications

Inputs, training, access and other details

Explanatory profile: limited source coverage · Automated source review, 2026-09-17. Review applies to the cited claims; unresolved fields are listed below. Numerical results retain their own review status.

Data, procedure and scoring
PropertyDescription and evidence
DatasetsNot extracted or verified for this record.
OrganismsNot extracted or verified for this record.
AssaysNot extracted or verified for this record.
SplitsNot extracted or verified for this record.
Allowed inputsNot extracted or verified for this record.
AdaptationNot extracted or verified for this record.
MetricsNot extracted or verified for this record.
BaselinesNot extracted or verified for this record.

Evidence

Source checking verifies the cited claim or transcription. It does not establish independent reproduction.

Papers and result coverage

Last literature check: 2026-09-17. Primary-source discovery and table/protocol screening; source checked is not independently reproduced. Raw acquisitions not automatically numerical publication approval.

Paper or primary resourceVersionReference
Lightweight taxonomic profiling of long-read metagenomic datasets with Lemur and MagnetPMC archival version PMC11185576.2Read source
DOI: 10.1101/2024.06.01.596961
Historical gaps recorded on 2026-09-17

The catalogue now holds 21 result rows for this benchmark. A note below about pending extraction describes the state on 2026-09-17 and may since have been answered by a later batch. The result rows and their sources are the current record.

  • Independent batch review before import; preserve existing observation identities.
Search and extraction details

complete comparison tables extracted pending publication review

Searches

  • Lightweight taxonomic profiling of long-read metagenomic datasets with Lemur and Magnet primary paper benchmark results

Evidence locations

  • Table 1:: Recall, Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads

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.

3 evidence rows matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-09-29-06401fd5b220
Property and statementOriginal source and locationReview and provenance
Evaluation in this paper
Species-level recall/precision/F 1. MetaMaps results copied from original manuscript; other tool versions reported in Methods. 200,114 reads;96 strain design,94 strains with RefSeq species representatives; average read 4,997 bp.
Individual claims
Lightweight taxonomic profiling of long-read metagenomic datasets with Lemur and Magnet

Original source ↗

Table 1:: Recall, Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads

Version: PMC archival version PMC11185576.2
Retrieved: 2026-09-17T07:56:16.880151+00:00

source checked

automated source review · 2026-09-17

Audit details

Primary-source transcription and separate automated review. No human sign-off or experimental reproduction.

Field: attributes.profile.sections.0.body

Source artifact SHA-256: 4afb9195da447916eb6f733816e3640741c7ade08ea8920d205c3be7b3cce27a

Hash scope: Exact retrieved primary paper artifact bytes.

Inspected artifact

Introduction
Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads · Table 1:. Species-level recall/precision/F 1. MetaMaps results copied from original manuscript; other tool versions reported in Methods. 200,114 reads;96 strain design,94 strains with RefSeq species representatives; average read 4,997 bp.
Individual claims
Lightweight taxonomic profiling of long-read metagenomic datasets with Lemur and Magnet

Original source ↗

Table 1:: Recall, Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads

Version: PMC archival version PMC11185576.2
Retrieved: 2026-09-17T07:56:16.880151+00:00

source checked

automated source review · 2026-09-17

Audit details

Primary-source transcription and separate automated review. No human sign-off or experimental reproduction.

Field: attributes.profile.summary

Source artifact SHA-256: 4afb9195da447916eb6f733816e3640741c7ade08ea8920d205c3be7b3cce27a

Hash scope: Exact retrieved primary paper artifact bytes.

Inspected artifact

Relationship: evaluates task
reported-task-6330d593980b5b
Individual claims
Lightweight taxonomic profiling of long-read metagenomic datasets with Lemur and Magnet

Original source ↗

Table 1:: Recall, Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads

Version: PMC archival version PMC11185576.2
Retrieved: 2026-09-17T07:56:16.880151+00:00

source checked

automated source review · 2026-09-17

Audit details

Field: links:evaluates_task:reported-task-6330d593980b5b

Claim: paper-claim-4e9825e29807055d9c

Source artifact SHA-256: 4afb9195da447916eb6f733816e3640741c7ade08ea8920d205c3be7b3cce27a

Hash scope: Exact retrieved primary paper artifact bytes.

Inspected artifact

Sources and history

View linked audit checks and correction history

Release 2026-09-29-06401fd5b220 · Record review: needs review

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

Stable ID: paper-protocol-1080592b8d6a8ce0bd

areas
microbes-communities
tasks
Long-read taxonomic profiling
entity level
protocol
protocol
Species-level recall/precision/F 1. MetaMaps results copied from original manuscript; other tool versions reported in Methods. 200,114 reads;96 strain design,94 strains with RefSeq species representatives; average read 4,997 bp.
comparison panels
id: part2-lemur-magnet-2024-T1-a3172c2928; title: Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads · Table 1:; protocol id: paper-protocol-1080592b8d6a8ce0bd; dataset id: paper-dataset-e8eb310c5d40e647ac; metric: Recall; unit: fraction; direction: higher; result ids: paper-result-80f8cca2c2d9379a1a; paper-result-620e5294f3d001ac96; paper-result-a91cd2aadeccebf9b9; paper-result-b70bf4b4c41e6dd812; paper-result-6da2d59412e925bccd; paper-result-74d2e70b442ba9026b; paper-result-8fd5837795f2fbba5f; source ids: part2-lemur-magnet-2024; source locator: Table 1:: Recall, Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads; context: Species-level recall/precision/F 1. MetaMaps results copied from original manuscript; other tool versions reported in Methods. 200,114 reads;96 strain design,94 strains with RefSeq species representatives; average read 4,997 bp.; caveats: MetaMaps is quoted prior evidence, not an independent repeated run.; Reference databases and classifier-versus-profiler task differ.; No interval assigned unless printed in source cell.; review: method: automated_source_review; date: 2026-09-17; id: part2-lemur-magnet-2024-T1-81ab2d846d; title: Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads · Table 1:; protocol id: paper-protocol-1080592b8d6a8ce0bd; dataset id: paper-dataset-e8eb310c5d40e647ac; metric: Precision; unit: fraction; direction: higher; result ids: paper-result-2268ad4341b9316164; paper-result-06a95cb8e4f61822eb; paper-result-9a39bac49d7dcf2b79; paper-result-a6256bb040cd29f64f; paper-result-f53c61bd32688408d8; paper-result-e2ceeb0f245677c087; paper-result-0dc829636e77fc0d92; source ids: part2-lemur-magnet-2024; source locator: Table 1:: Precision, Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads; context: Species-level recall/precision/F 1. MetaMaps results copied from original manuscript; other tool versions reported in Methods. 200,114 reads;96 strain design,94 strains with RefSeq species representatives; average read 4,997 bp.; caveats: MetaMaps is quoted prior evidence, not an independent repeated run.; Reference databases and classifier-versus-profiler task differ.; No interval assigned unless printed in source cell.; review: method: automated_source_review; date: 2026-09-17; id: part2-lemur-magnet-2024-T1-e9572b0ed9; title: Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads · Table 1:; protocol id: paper-protocol-1080592b8d6a8ce0bd; dataset id: paper-dataset-e8eb310c5d40e647ac; metric: F1 score; unit: fraction; direction: higher; result ids: paper-result-4468fa08040fb0bd80; paper-result-19f79487e8dff1a781; paper-result-25455d4621f0aeb383; paper-result-f9b8d072704477374e; paper-result-03860ee74178c46356; paper-result-fdc2db2e65a30e98e7; paper-result-f8adf74d2b525a6380; source ids: part2-lemur-magnet-2024; source locator: Table 1:: F1 score, Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads; context: Species-level recall/precision/F 1. MetaMaps results copied from original manuscript; other tool versions reported in Methods. 200,114 reads;96 strain design,94 strains with RefSeq species representatives; average read 4,997 bp.; caveats: MetaMaps is quoted prior evidence, not an independent repeated run.; Reference databases and classifier-versus-profiler task differ.; No interval assigned unless printed in source cell.; review: method: automated_source_review; date: 2026-09-17
benchmark research
review date: 2026-09-17; status: complete_comparison_tables_extracted_pending_publication_review; primary sources: part2-lemur-magnet-2024; inspected locators: Table 1:: Recall, Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads; searched queries: Lightweight taxonomic profiling of long-read metagenomic datasets with Lemur and Magnet primary paper benchmark results; gaps: Independent batch review before import; preserve existing observation identities.; claim scope: Primary-source discovery and table/protocol screening; source checked is not independently reproduced. Raw acquisitions not automatically numerical publication approval.
legacy kinds
benchmark
entity classification
review date: 2026-09-17; rationale: The source-backed record identifies a specified evaluated procedure and its dataset/split/scoring context. Classify it as a protocol while preserving version and comparison restrictions.; source ids: part2-lemur-magnet-2024; source locator: Table 1:: Recall, Species profiling on Dilthey2019 simulated long reads; ambiguities: None recorded
Related records

Suggest a correction