HECTOR vs. ENIGMA Evidence Repository (eRepo) agreement
HECTOR's automated five-tier classification and evidence-code assignment compared against the ENIGMA VCEP's expert-curated classifications and codes for the same 143 Evidence Repository variants. Agreement with the ENIGMA VCEP's expert-curated classifications and evidence-code assignments in the ClinGen Evidence Repository (eRepo), not independent accuracy; not peer reviewed.
Overview
HECTOR's automated five-tier classification and evidence-code assignment compared against the ENIGMA VCEP's expert-curated classifications and codes for the same 143 Evidence Repository variants. Agreement with the ENIGMA VCEP's expert-curated classifications and evidence-code assignments in the ClinGen Evidence Repository (eRepo), not independent accuracy; not peer reviewed.
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.
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
| Tested configuration | Protocol and dataset | Finding | Evidence and details |
|---|---|---|---|
| Configuration: HECTOR automated classifier (ENIGMA V1.2 specification) | Protocol: HECTOR vs. ENIGMA Evidence Repository (eRepo) agreement Dataset: ENIGMA Evidence Repository (eRepo) BRCA1/BRCA2 reference set | 75.5% (108/143) classification_agreement_rate percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Author-reported evaluation · Source checkedMethods, coverage and sourceHECTOR eRepo concordance evaluation Not reported Aggregation: Not reported HECTOR: A Web-Based Tool for Automated BRCA1/BRCA2 Variant Classification Under the ClinGen ENIGMA Specifications · Results, "Evidence Repository": "At the classification level, HECTOR agreed with the ENIGMA VCEP classification for 108 of the 143 variants (75.5%)." |
| Configuration: HECTOR automated classifier (ENIGMA V1.2 specification) | Protocol: HECTOR vs. ENIGMA Evidence Repository (eRepo) agreement Dataset: ENIGMA Evidence Repository (eRepo) BRCA1/BRCA2 reference set | 78.9% (326/413) criteria_code_agreement_rate percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Author-reported evaluation · Source checkedMethods, coverage and sourceHECTOR eRepo concordance evaluation Not reported Aggregation: Not reported HECTOR: A Web-Based Tool for Automated BRCA1/BRCA2 Variant Classification Under the ClinGen ENIGMA Specifications · Results, "Evidence Repository": "...the ENIGMA VCEP applied 413 evidence codes, of which HECTOR reproduced 326 (78.9%) at the identical code and strength (Figure 1)." |
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
| Property and statement | Original source and location | Review and provenance |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship: part of uc-clinical-20261005-hector-benchmark Individual claims | HECTOR: A Web-Based Tool for Automated BRCA1/BRCA2 Variant Classification Under the ClinGen ENIGMA Specifications Results, "Evidence Repository" Version: medRxiv preprint v1, posted 2026-07-06 | source checked automated source review · 2026-10-05 Audit detailsTranscription from inspected primary source. No execution, independent replication or human scientific review. Field: Claim: uc-clinical-20261005-hector-membership Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record |
Sources and history
View linked audit checks and correction history
Release 2026-10-06-fea06f63ac0e · Record review: source checked
1 source records and release history
- HECTOR: A Web-Based Tool for Automated BRCA1/BRCA2 Variant Classification Under the ClinGen ENIGMA Specifications · Original source · medRxiv preprint v1, posted 2026-07-06
Technical metadata and extraction receipts
Stable ID: uc-clinical-20261005-hector-erepo-protocol
- areas
- dna-genomes
- contexts
- clinical_research
- protocol
- HECTOR's automatically derived five-tier classification and ACMG/AMP evidence codes compared, variant by variant and code by code, against the ENIGMA VCEP's expert-panel classifications and codes for the 143 eRepo variants.
- publication status
- preprint_not_peer_reviewed
- review
- method: automated_source_review; reviewer: Claude Sonnet clinical coverage worker (research-evidence intake); date: 2026-10-06; note: Transcription from inspected primary source. No execution, independent replication or human scientific review. Corrected 2026-10-06: the eRepo comparator was re-verified live against the preprint and relabelled from "ClinVar expert-panel" to the ENIGMA VCEP's expert-curated classifications and evidence-code assignments in the ClinGen Evidence Repository (eRepo); no numeric values changed.; source id: uc-clinical-20261005-source-hector-preprint
- limitations
- Preprint, not peer reviewed; no independent adjudication of either tool's calls.; Measures agreement with the ENIGMA VCEP's expert-curated classifications and evidence-code assignments in the ClinGen Evidence Repository (eRepo), not independent accuracy against a separately adjudicated ground truth.; No reviewer time measured.