CPPC prospective nomination of desired T-cell states
Screen-1 trained submitted methods nominate untested genes using ICB/CAR-T state objectives; follow-up Screen 2 measures state distribution. This captures an experimental selection subtask; not tumour control, rescue, selectivity or clinical efficacy.
Overview
Screen-1 trained submitted methods nominate untested genes using ICB/CAR-T state objectives; follow-up Screen 2 measures state distribution. This captures an experimental selection subtask; not tumour control, rescue, selectivity or clinical efficacy.
Consult the linked sources for architecture or protocol details. Missing evidence is not evidence of a missing capability.
1 recorded evaluation, 1 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 · 1 result. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.
Filter evaluations
Applied filters: All linked evaluations
| Tested configuration | Protocol and dataset | Finding | Evidence and details |
|---|---|---|---|
| Configuration: CPPC submitted-method nomination campaign | Protocol: CPPC prospective nomination of desired T-cell states Dataset: CPPC B16-OVA mouse melanoma T-cell perturbation screens | two named-desired-state-hits targets · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Author-reported evaluation · Source checkedMethods, coverage and sourceNot reported Aggregation: Not reported Cancer Immunotherapy Data Science Challenge · Abstract; Results Figure 5: Dimt1 and Ndufv2 exceed Screen-1 targets on ICB objective |
Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-09-30-e37e3ab1284d.
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
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 2026-09-30-e37e3ab1284d. 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
Applicable tests and references
Applicability is distinct from a completed evaluation.
- Expert-selected T-cell regulator targets · source_supported
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.
3 evidence rows matching the loaded filters
| Property and statement | Original source and location | Review and provenance |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship: part of ucc-research-benchmark-cppc Individual claims | Cancer Immunotherapy Data Science Challenge official code Challenge setup and results; Supplementary Table S2 Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: 283328a9b8afc6e882eeb503ac4710bbe9f37371 | source checked automated source review · 2026-09-30T21:43:56Z Audit detailsPrimary-source table transcription and scope review; no independent reproduction or human scientific review. Field: Claim: ucc-research-membership-cppc-prospective-selection Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record |
| Relationship: part of ucc-research-benchmark-cppc Individual claims | Cancer Immunotherapy Data Science Challenge Challenge setup and results; Supplementary Table S2 Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: 10.64898/2026.05.21.726863v1; 2026 preprint | source checked automated source review · 2026-09-30T21:43:56Z Audit detailsPrimary-source table transcription and scope review; no independent reproduction or human scientific review. Field: Claim: ucc-research-membership-cppc-prospective-selection Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record |
| Relationship: part of ucc-research-benchmark-cppc Individual claims | CPPC Table S2 original and reimplemented submission comparisons Challenge setup and results; Supplementary Table S2 Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation. Version: Table S2 media-3.xlsx, 10.64898/2026.05.21.726863v1 | source checked automated source review · 2026-09-30T21:43:56Z Audit detailsPrimary-source table transcription and scope review; no independent reproduction or human scientific review. Field: Claim: ucc-research-membership-cppc-prospective-selection Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record Archive member: media-3.xlsx |
Sources and history
View linked audit checks and correction history
Release 2026-09-30-e37e3ab1284d · Record review: source checked
2 source records and release history
- Cancer Immunotherapy Data Science Challenge · Original source · 10.64898/2026.05.21.726863v1; 2026 preprint
- Cancer Immunotherapy Data Science Challenge official code · Original source · 283328a9b8afc6e882eeb503ac4710bbe9f37371
Technical metadata and extraction receipts
Stable ID: ucc-research-protocol-cppc-prospective-selection
- review
- method: automated_source_review; actor: Codex research coverage worker; reviewed at: 2026-09-30T21:43:56Z; note: Primary-source table transcription and scope review; no independent reproduction or human scientific review.
- source locator
- Challenge 2; Figure 5; Abstract
- comparison limit
- Aggregate nominations across methods; not matched-budget random-versus-model prospective trial.