Protocol

Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3)

Proportion of solved cases whose causal gene each tool ranks within the top k.

Overview

An explanatory profile has not yet been reviewed for this record.

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

11 recorded evaluations, 77 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

11 evaluations · 77 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) · Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)

Sorted by Top-1 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) (higher is better). The best value in each column is highlighted. Decimals are rounded for display; each value links to the printed value and its source.

Tested configuration	Top-1 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes)	Top-10 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes)	Top-20 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes)	Top-30 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes)	Top-40 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes)	Top-5 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes)	Top-50 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes)
AMELIE default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)Evaluation	47.9% (best in column)	86.2% (best in column)	90.5% (best in column)	92.8%	93.1%	81.3% (best in column)	93.1%
LIRICAL default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)Evaluation	41%	83%	89.8%	94.4% (best in column)	95.4% (best in column)	70.8%	96.1% (best in column)
Xrare default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)Evaluation	38%	73.1%	81.6%	87.2%	89.2%	64.9%	90.8%
PhenIX default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)Evaluation	15.7%	41.6%	54.8%	61.3%	69.5%	33.8%	74.1%
Exomiser default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)Evaluation	15.1%	53.1%	70.5%	79%	83.9%	38.4%	86.6%
AMELIE-HPO default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)Evaluation	4.3%	14.4%	23.9%	29.8%	34.4%	10.8%	37.7%
DeepPVP default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)Evaluation	1.6%	5.6%	7.2%	8.2%	8.9%	3.9%	8.9%
Phen2Gene default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)Evaluation	1.6%	8.5%	14.4%	18.4%	20.3%	5.9%	21.6%
HANRD default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)Evaluation	1.3%	6.9%	7.9%	10.5%	13.1%	4.3%	14.1%
Phenolyzer default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)Evaluation	1.3%	7.9%	13.4%	18.4%	20.7%	5.2%	23.3%
GADO default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)Evaluation	0.3%	2.3%	3.6%	4.3%	5.6%	1.3%	6.6%

All 77 result rows with coverage, uncertainty and sources

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: AMELIE-HPO default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	4.3% Top-1 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source AMELIE-HPO default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 11 (DDD, AMELIE-HPO), column 'TOP 1(%)'
Configuration: AMELIE-HPO default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	14.4% Top-10 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source AMELIE-HPO default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 11 (DDD, AMELIE-HPO), column 'TOP 10(%)'
Configuration: AMELIE-HPO default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	23.9% Top-20 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source AMELIE-HPO default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 11 (DDD, AMELIE-HPO), column 'TOP 20(%)'
Configuration: AMELIE-HPO default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	29.8% Top-30 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source AMELIE-HPO default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 11 (DDD, AMELIE-HPO), column 'TOP 30(%)'
Configuration: AMELIE-HPO default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	34.4% Top-40 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source AMELIE-HPO default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 11 (DDD, AMELIE-HPO), column 'TOP 40(%)'
Configuration: AMELIE-HPO default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	10.8% Top-5 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source AMELIE-HPO default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 11 (DDD, AMELIE-HPO), column 'TOP 5(%)'
Configuration: AMELIE-HPO default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	37.7% Top-50 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source AMELIE-HPO default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 11 (DDD, AMELIE-HPO), column 'TOP 50(%)'
Configuration: AMELIE default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	47.9% Top-1 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source AMELIE default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 5 (DDD, AMELIE), column 'TOP 1(%)'
Configuration: AMELIE default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	86.2% Top-10 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source AMELIE default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 5 (DDD, AMELIE), column 'TOP 10(%)'
Configuration: AMELIE default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	90.5% Top-20 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source AMELIE default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 5 (DDD, AMELIE), column 'TOP 20(%)'
Configuration: AMELIE default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	92.8% Top-30 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source AMELIE default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 5 (DDD, AMELIE), column 'TOP 30(%)'
Configuration: AMELIE default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	93.1% Top-40 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source AMELIE default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 5 (DDD, AMELIE), column 'TOP 40(%)'
Configuration: AMELIE default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	81.3% Top-5 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source AMELIE default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 5 (DDD, AMELIE), column 'TOP 5(%)'
Configuration: AMELIE default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	93.1% Top-50 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source AMELIE default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 5 (DDD, AMELIE), column 'TOP 50(%)'
Configuration: DeepPVP default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	1.6% Top-1 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source DeepPVP default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 3 (DDD, DeepPVP), column 'TOP 1(%)'
Configuration: DeepPVP default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	5.6% Top-10 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source DeepPVP default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 3 (DDD, DeepPVP), column 'TOP 10(%)'
Configuration: DeepPVP default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	7.2% Top-20 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source DeepPVP default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 3 (DDD, DeepPVP), column 'TOP 20(%)'
Configuration: DeepPVP default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	8.2% Top-30 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source DeepPVP default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 3 (DDD, DeepPVP), column 'TOP 30(%)'
Configuration: DeepPVP default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	8.9% Top-40 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source DeepPVP default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 3 (DDD, DeepPVP), column 'TOP 40(%)'
Configuration: DeepPVP default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	3.9% Top-5 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source DeepPVP default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 3 (DDD, DeepPVP), column 'TOP 5(%)'
Configuration: DeepPVP default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	8.9% Top-50 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source DeepPVP default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 3 (DDD, DeepPVP), column 'TOP 50(%)'
Configuration: Exomiser default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	15.1% Top-1 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source Exomiser default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 2 (DDD, Exomiser), column 'TOP 1(%)'
Configuration: Exomiser default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	53.1% Top-10 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source Exomiser default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 2 (DDD, Exomiser), column 'TOP 10(%)'
Configuration: Exomiser default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	70.5% Top-20 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source Exomiser default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 2 (DDD, Exomiser), column 'TOP 20(%)'
Configuration: Exomiser default, singleton (Yuan et al. 2022)	Protocol: Causal-gene rank in 305 DDD exomes, default singleton runs (Yuan et al. 2022 SM Table 3) Dataset: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)	79% Top-30 accuracy (proportion of solved cases with the causal gene within the tool's top-ranked genes) percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Methods, coverage and source Exomiser default singleton on DDD 305 rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default Aggregation: Not reported Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases; Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · SM Table 3 row 2 (DDD, Exomiser), column 'TOP 30(%)'

Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-11-02-a7f03c9e55a5.

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: 11

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 2026-11-02-a7f03c9e55a5. 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.

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 2026-11-02-a7f03c9e55a5
Property and statement	Original source and location	Review and provenance

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

How to read the evidence

Sources and history

Release 2026-11-02-a7f03c9e55a5 · Record review: source checked

2 source records and release history

Evaluation of phenotype-driven gene prioritization methods for Mendelian diseases · Original source · Briefings in Bioinformatics 23(2):bbac019, published 2022-02-04; PMC8921623 full-text XML
Yuan et al. 2022, SM Table 3 (accuracy in each top level experiment) · Original source · sm_table_3_r1_bbac019.docx inside the Europe PMC supplementaryFiles zip for PMC8921623

Download this release (gzip)

Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default

areas: dna-genomes
contexts: clinical_research
protocol: Run each tool with default parameters on proband HPO terms (and VCF where accepted); record the rank of the known causal gene; report the percentage of cases ranked top 1 and within top 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50.
version: SM Table 3 rows 'DDD'
source locator: SM Table 3; Materials 'Performance evaluation'
limitations: Ranking of the known causal gene in solved cases; does not establish pathogenicity or a diagnosis.; Each case has a single causal gene; cases with no or several causal genes are not represented.; Default parameters and singleton mode for every tool; versions from 2014 to 2020.; AMELIE draws on the literature, and 156 of 305 DDD cases are published (HGMD); the authors report an almost unchanged trend on the 149 unpublished cases.; Same group later optimised parameters (Yuan et al. 2024); the two studies use different tool versions.

Related records

uses data: DDD 305 solved probands (Yuan et al. selection)
subject: selection_bias: rare-ranking-20261009-protocol-yuan2022-ddd-singleton-default
assessment: AMELIE default singleton on DDD 305
assessment: AMELIE-HPO default singleton on DDD 305
assessment: DeepPVP default singleton on DDD 305
assessment: Exomiser default singleton on DDD 305
assessment: GADO default singleton on DDD 305
assessment: HANRD default singleton on DDD 305
assessment: LIRICAL default singleton on DDD 305
assessment: Phen2Gene default singleton on DDD 305
assessment: PhenIX default singleton on DDD 305
assessment: Phenolyzer default singleton on DDD 305
assessment: Xrare default singleton on DDD 305
assessed by: Rank rare-disease variants for review

Suggest a correction