Result

Hit rate (novel binders confirmed by BLI, out of designs selected for testing; excludes two binders later disqualified for similarity to an existing binder) of Adaptyv EGFR competition round 1 selected submissions on Adaptyv EGFR competition round 1 tested designs

2.5% (5/201) Hit rate (novel binders confirmed by BLI, out of designs selected for testing; excludes two binders later disqualified for similarity to an existing binder)

Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons

The paper prints three different round-1 binder rates and two round-2 expression rates. Section 2.4 gives round 1 as '2.5% (5/201)' and round 2 as 'a 95% expression rate (378 of 400 tested)'; Section 4.1 gives expression as improving 'from 73% to 94%'; Section 4.1 gives the binder percentage as rising 'from 3% in the first round to 13%'. All the printed values are recorded with their locators and none is reconciled here.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Sections 2.4, 4.1 and 4.2

Section 4.1 says Figure 8 shows 'the total number of validated binders across the 3 binding thresholds' but no section of the paper defines those three thresholds. No hit definition is therefore recorded for the Figure 8 counts, and the binding protocol's success threshold is left unstated with a reason rather than guessed.Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) · Section 4.1; Figure 8 caption

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 2.4: 'previous work on de novo binders to EGFR achieved an 0.01% hit rate versus the 2.5% (5/201) we had observed in R1'

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

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6
Property and statement	Original source and location	Review and provenance
Reported result 2.5% (5/201) Individual claims	Crowdsourced Protein Design: Lessons From the Adaptyv EGFR Binder Competition (Cotet et al., bioRxiv 2025) Original source ↗ Section 2.4: 'previous work on de novo binders to EGFR achieved an 0.01% hit rate versus the 2.5% (5/201) we had observed in R1' Version: bioRxiv preprint version 1 Retrieved: 2026-10-22T12:01:00Z	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 details 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. Field: `attributes.printed_value` Source artifact SHA-256: `17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f` Hash scope: SHA-256 of one retrieval of a mutable web page. The hash describes that retrieval, not a stable artifact. Inspected artifact Extraction artifact SHA-256: `17039d69ecc37f45f6c402511b8f4497ce631003689fa95ad1ab221f8f787a4f` Extraction artifact

How to read the evidence

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

Download this release (gzip)

Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: uc-binder-20261022-result-adaptyv-r1-hitrate

denominator: 201
denominator note: 201 designs selected for testing, of which 146 expressed. The printed rate uses 201, the selected set, not 146.
metric: hit-rate
metric direction: higher
metric qualifier: novel binders confirmed by BLI, out of designs selected for testing; excludes two binders later disqualified for similarity to an existing binder
missing metadata: uncertainty: note: No interval is printed.; reason: unreported
numerator: 5
numeric value: 2.5
printed value: 2.5% (5/201)
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 locator: Section 2.4: 'previous work on de novo binders to EGFR achieved an 0.01% hit rate versus the 2.5% (5/201) we had observed in R1'
unit: percent
unit detail: percent of designs selected for testing

Related records

evaluation: Adaptyv EGFR competition round 1 binding rate

Suggest a correction