rewire.itbenchmarks
Result

20% reclassified_to_lb_fraction

Benet-Pages t2 (ACMG/AMP + SVI): reclassified_to_lb_fraction

Tested configuration
ACMG/AMP classification system with SVI recommendations (t2)
Protocol
Benet-Pages BRCA1/BRCA2 VUS reclassification: ACMG/AMP + SVI step (t2)
Dataset
Benet-Pages 2025 BRCA1/BRCA2 VUS reclassification cohort
Procedure
Not reported
Evaluation
Benet-Pages t2 (ACMG/AMP + SVI) reclassification of the 121-variant VUS cohort
Coverage
scored: unreported; eligible: unreported
Uncertainty
Not reported
Evidence
Author-reported evaluation · source checkedReclassification 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 ACMG/AMP classification system with SVI recommendations and new data (ACMG/AMP + SVI)": "Of 121 VUS, 20% (n = 24) were reclassified as LB..."

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
Source-defined endpoint; see result source_locator

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 2026-10-06-fea06f63ac0e
Property and statementOriginal source and locationReview and provenance
Reported result
20%
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, "Reclassification of variants using the ACMG/AMP classification system with SVI recommendations and new data (ACMG/AMP + SVI)": "Of 121 VUS, 20% (n = 24) were reclassified as LB..."

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

author reported

Audit details

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

Field: attributes.printed_value

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-t2-reclassified-lb-fraction

areas
dna-genomes
contexts
clinical_research
metric
reclassified_to_lb_fraction
unit
percent
printed value
20%
numeric value
20
metric direction
higher
uncertainty
Not reported
denominator
121
source locator
Results, "Reclassification of variants using the ACMG/AMP classification system with SVI recommendations and new data (ACMG/AMP + SVI)": "Of 121 VUS, 20% (n = 24) were reclassified as LB..."
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
missing metadata
uncertainty: not reported for this endpoint
Related records

Suggest a correction