rewire.itbenchmarks
Protocol

Benet-Pages BRCA1/BRCA2 VUS reclassification: ENIGMA VCEP step (t3)

Reclassification of the same fixed 121-variant VUS cohort using the ENIGMA BRCA1/BRCA2 VCEP specification v1.1.0, applied after the ACMG/AMP + SVI step.

1 evaluation · 2 results

Overview

Reclassification of the same fixed 121-variant VUS cohort using the ENIGMA BRCA1/BRCA2 VCEP specification v1.1.0, applied after the ACMG/AMP + SVI step.

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

1 recorded evaluation, 2 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

1 evaluation · 2 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

Filter evaluations

Applied filters: All linked evaluations

Exact evaluated configurations and original reported results
Tested configurationProtocol and datasetFindingEvidence and details
Configuration: ENIGMA BRCA1/BRCA2 VCEP specification v1.1.0 (t3)Protocol: Benet-Pages BRCA1/BRCA2 VUS reclassification: ENIGMA VCEP step (t3)
Dataset: Benet-Pages 2025 BRCA1/BRCA2 VUS reclassification cohort
101 reclassified_to_b_or_lb_count
count · unknown

Uncertainty: Not reported

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Author-reported evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Benet-Pages t3 (ENIGMA VCEP) reclassification of the 121-variant VUS cohort

Not reported

Aggregation: Not reported

Reclassification of VUS in BRCA1 and BRCA2 using the new BRCA1/BRCA2 ENIGMA track set demonstrates the superiority of ClinGen ENIGMA Expert Panel specifications over the standard ACMG/AMP classification system · Results, "Reclassification of variants using the ENIGMA specifications (ENIGMA VCEP)": "...83.5% (n = 101) of VUS were reclassified as B (n = 9) or LB (n = 92) (Figure 2A; t3)."
Configuration: ENIGMA BRCA1/BRCA2 VCEP specification v1.1.0 (t3)Protocol: Benet-Pages BRCA1/BRCA2 VUS reclassification: ENIGMA VCEP step (t3)
Dataset: Benet-Pages 2025 BRCA1/BRCA2 VUS reclassification cohort
83.5% reclassified_to_b_or_lb_fraction
percent · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Author-reported evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Benet-Pages t3 (ENIGMA VCEP) reclassification of the 121-variant VUS cohort

Not reported

Aggregation: Not reported

Reclassification of VUS in BRCA1 and BRCA2 using the new BRCA1/BRCA2 ENIGMA track set demonstrates the superiority of ClinGen ENIGMA Expert Panel specifications over the standard ACMG/AMP classification system · Results, "Reclassification of variants using the ENIGMA specifications (ENIGMA VCEP)": "...83.5% (n = 101) of VUS were reclassified as B (n = 9) or LB (n = 92) (Figure 2A; t3)."

Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-10-06-fea06f63ac0e.

Methods and evaluation design

Procedure, tasks and evaluated configurations

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.

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

Training-set class prior where supervised fitting is permitted

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

Regularised classifier on simple permitted features, or protocol's conventional reference

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 2026-10-06-fea06f63ac0e. 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.

1 evidence row matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-10-06-fea06f63ac0e
Property and statementOriginal source and locationReview and provenance
Relationship: part of
uc-clinical-20261005-benet-pages-benchmark
Individual claims
Reclassification of VUS in BRCA1 and BRCA2 using the new BRCA1/BRCA2 ENIGMA track set demonstrates the superiority of ClinGen ENIGMA Expert Panel specifications over the standard ACMG/AMP classification system

Original source ↗

Results, VUS reclassification sections

Version: 2025 published article (Genetics in Medicine Open); ENIGMA BRCA1/BRCA2 VCEP specification v1.1.0 applied
Retrieved: 2026-10-05T14:02:27Z

source checked

automated source review · 2026-10-05

Audit details

Transcription from inspected primary source. No execution, independent replication or human scientific review.

Field: links:part_of:uc-clinical-20261005-benet-pages-benchmark

Claim: uc-clinical-20261005-benet-pages-t3-membership

Source artifact SHA-256: 2e458cacad35cca0507753c43c5104b75217593a0c2fdbd16143f0391fba33eb

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

Sources and history

View linked audit checks and correction history

Release 2026-10-06-fea06f63ac0e · Record review: source checked

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

Stable ID: uc-clinical-20261005-benet-pages-t3-protocol

areas
dna-genomes
contexts
clinical_research
protocol
ENIGMA BRCA1/BRCA2 VCEP specification v1.1.0 applied to the same 121-variant VUS cohort after the ACMG/AMP + SVI (t2) step.
review
method: automated_source_review; reviewer: Claude Sonnet clinical coverage worker (research-evidence intake); date: 2026-10-05; note: Transcription from inspected primary source. No execution, independent replication or human scientific review.; source id: uc-clinical-20261005-source-benet-pages
limitations
Reclassification rate across successive criteria-set versions on a fixed cohort, not a tool/method comparison against a baseline reviewer process.; No reviewer time or independent clinical adjudication reported.; Aggregate counts only; the source's gene-split reclassification-rate sentence (BRCA1 85% n=40, BRCA2 83% n=67) cannot be reconciled against its own Methods denominators and is not used here.
Related records

Suggest a correction