Hit rate (designs confirmed as binders by BLI, out of designs selected for testing, as stated in Section 4.2; Section 2.4 prints 2.5% (5/201) for the same round) of Adaptyv EGFR competition round 1 selected submissions on Adaptyv EGFR competition round 1 tested designs
3% Hit rate (designs confirmed as binders by BLI, out of designs selected for testing, as stated in Section 4.2; Section 2.4 prints 2.5% (5/201) for the same round)
Methods
- Tested configuration
- Adaptyv EGFR competition round 1 selected submissions
- Protocol
- Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI binding screen
- Dataset
- Adaptyv EGFR competition round 1 tested designs
- Procedure
- Adaptyv EGFR competition BLI binding screen
- Evaluation
- Adaptyv EGFR competition round 1 binding rate
- Coverage
- Not reported scored / Not reported eligible
- Uncertainty
- Not reported by the source: No interval is printed.
- Evidence
- Independent external evaluation · source checkedCrowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1: 'from 3% in the first round to 13% (Figure 8)'
A source-checked result verifies the numerical transcription, not every model or protocol detail. Evaluation metadata: source checked. Source checked does not mean independently reproduced.
Reproduction
- Split
- Not reported
- Adaptation
- Not reported
- Scoring implementation
- Share of selected designs confirmed as binders by BLI
No execution recipe has been verified for this exact configuration and evaluation. A benchmark's general instructions may use different inputs, splits or model settings.
Reproducing this published result requires matching its model configuration, data, split and scorer. Source checking or a successful smoke test does not establish score reproduction.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Reported result 3% Individual claims | Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Section 4.1: 'from 3% in the first round to 13% (Figure 8)' Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 | source checked ["source-hash-verification","independent-cell-check","ai-assisted-source-review"] · 2026-10-22T15:00:00Z independent paper Source has a recorded evidence concern. Consult its source page before using the claim. Audit detailsReviewed in docs/reviews/use-cases/binder-2026-10-22.md. Automated AI review of the source transcription only; it is not human scientific review and nothing here was reproduced experimentally. Field: Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: SHA-256 of one retrieval of a mutable web page. The hash describes that retrieval, not a stable artifact. Extraction artifact SHA-256: |
Sources and history
Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6 · Record review: source checked
1 source record and release history
- Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Original source · bioRxiv preprint version 1
Technical metadata and extraction receipts
Stable ID: uc-binder-20261022-result-adaptyv-r1-hitrate-section-4-2
- denominator
- 201
- denominator note
- 201 designs selected for testing. The sentence points at Figure 8, which reports binders across three undefined binding thresholds.
- metric
- hit-rate
- metric direction
- higher
- metric qualifier
- designs confirmed as binders by BLI, out of designs selected for testing, as stated in Section 4.2; Section 2.4 prints 2.5% (5/201) for the same round
- missing metadata
- numerator: note: 3% of 201 is 6 against the 5 novel binders in Section 2.4.; reason: conflicting; uncertainty: note: No interval is printed.; reason: unreported
- numeric value
- 3
- printed value
- 3%
- review
- artifact sha256: 17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f; method: source-hash-verification; independent-cell-check; ai-assisted-source-review; method note: Re-downloaded (HTTP 200, 493,217 bytes, the same byte count as the pinned retrieval) but the SHA-256 differs, as expected for a mutable bioRxiv page whose hash describes one retrieval. Every extracted value and every quoted sentence was then located verbatim in the new retrieval, so the difference is in page furniture and not in the evidence. One section attribution and one quotation were corrected.; note: Reviewed in docs/reviews/use-cases/binder-2026-10-22.md. Automated AI review of the source transcription only; it is not human scientific review and nothing here was reproduced experimentally.; retrieval url: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.04.17.648362v1.full; reviewed at: 2026-10-22T15:00:00Z; reviewer: claude; reviewer note: Claude review agent, independent of the extraction agent; no human review claimed
- source discrepancy
- Section 2.4 prints 2.5% (5/201) for round 1 and Section 4.2 prints 3%. Both are recorded.
- source locator
- Section 4.1: 'from 3% in the first round to 13% (Figure 8)'
- unit
- percent
- unit detail
- percent of designs selected for testing
Related records
- evaluation: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 1 binding rate