58.9% concordance_rate
So 2024 VarSome-vs-CanVIG-UK: concordance_rate
- Tested configuration
- VarSome vs. CanVIG-UK three-category concordance comparison
- Protocol
- So 2024 VarSome-vs-CanVIG-UK agreement on conflicting BRCA1 missense variants
- Dataset
- So 2024 BRCA1 conflicting-classification missense cohort
- Procedure
- Not reported
- Evaluation
- So 2024 VarSome-vs-CanVIG-UK agreement evaluation
- Coverage
- scored: unreported; eligible: unreported
- Uncertainty
- type: confidence_interval; level: 95%; low: 52.0; high: 66.4; unit: percent
- Evidence
- Author-reported evaluation · source checkedReinterpretation of Conflicting ClinVar BRCA1 Missense Variants Using VarSome and CanVIG-UK Gene-Specific Guidance · Results, Section 3.3, "Comparison of Classification Results Between Varsome and CanVIG-UK": "The overall concordance rate was 58.9% (95% CI: 52.0-66.4%; 265/450) between VarSome and CanVIG-UK (Figure 2)."
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
| Property and statement | Original source and location | Review and provenance |
|---|---|---|
| Reported result 58.9% Individual claims | Reinterpretation of Conflicting ClinVar BRCA1 Missense Variants Using VarSome and CanVIG-UK Gene-Specific Guidance Results, Section 3.3, "Comparison of Classification Results Between Varsome and CanVIG-UK": "The overall concordance rate was 58.9% (95% CI: 52.0-66.4%; 265/450) between VarSome and CanVIG-UK (Figure 2)." Version: 2024 published article (Diagnostics (Basel)); CanVIG-UK gene-specific guidance v1.17 / consensus specification v2.17 applied | source checked automated source review · 2026-10-05 author reported Audit detailsTranscription from inspected primary source. No execution, independent replication or human scientific review. Field: 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
- Reinterpretation of Conflicting ClinVar BRCA1 Missense Variants Using VarSome and CanVIG-UK Gene-Specific Guidance · Original source · 2024 published article (Diagnostics (Basel)); CanVIG-UK gene-specific guidance v1.17 / consensus specification v2.17 applied
Technical metadata and extraction receipts
Stable ID: uc-clinical-20261005-so-2024-concordance-rate
- areas
- dna-genomes
- contexts
- clinical_research
- metric
- concordance_rate
- unit
- percent
- printed value
- 58.9%
- numeric value
- 58.9
- metric direction
- higher
- uncertainty
- type: confidence_interval; level: 95%; low: 52.0; high: 66.4; unit: percent
- denominator
- 450
- source locator
- Results, Section 3.3, "Comparison of Classification Results Between Varsome and CanVIG-UK": "The overall concordance rate was 58.9% (95% CI: 52.0-66.4%; 265/450) between VarSome and CanVIG-UK (Figure 2)."
- 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-so-2024