rewirebio.iobenchmarks
Source

Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8)

13059_2025_3575_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx as published with PMC12016141 · Peer-reviewed

DOI: 10.1186/s13059-025-03575-wOriginal source

What this source contributed

Records in this release that cite this source. A record can cite several sources.

Results

Values as the source printed them. Compare results only under compatible protocols, datasets and metrics.

ValueMetricModel or configurationDatasetEvaluation
20.7727481294708 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, per-protein AUROC on shared variants, ClinVar P/LP versus gnomAD v4.1 missense, proteins with at least 10 of each)3Cnet (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical set: ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD v4.1 missense (819 proteins)3Cnet: Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical benchmark: pairwise AUROC win rate, ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD missense
7.053727028 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)3Cnet (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)3Cnet: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets
0 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against the five top-ranked VEPs (column top_5_winrate; the five are not listed in the table), |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)3Cnet (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)3Cnet: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets
3.50694444444444 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, direct DMS assays only)3Cnet (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)3Cnet: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, direct assays only
9.57286560457516 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, indirect DMS assays only)3Cnet (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)3Cnet: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, indirect assays only
6.36989208142997 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, SNV-accessible substitutions only)3Cnet (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)3Cnet: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions only
6.64946484588176 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS, SNV-accessible substitutions, missing predictions filled with the VEP's most benign score)3Cnet (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)3Cnet: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions with gaps filled
77.4918788366578 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, per-protein AUROC on shared variants, ClinVar P/LP versus gnomAD v4.1 missense, proteins with at least 10 of each)AlphaMissense (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical set: ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD v4.1 missense (819 proteins)AlphaMissense: Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical benchmark: pairwise AUROC win rate, ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD missense
90.69319162 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)AlphaMissense (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)AlphaMissense: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets
65.25670498 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against the five top-ranked VEPs (column top_5_winrate; the five are not listed in the table), |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)AlphaMissense (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)AlphaMissense: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets
92.1365208865208 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, direct DMS assays only)AlphaMissense (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)AlphaMissense: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, direct assays only
89.5024970809849 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, indirect DMS assays only)AlphaMissense (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)AlphaMissense: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, indirect assays only
89.2018795078429 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, SNV-accessible substitutions only)AlphaMissense (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)AlphaMissense: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions only
89.4638656922081 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS, SNV-accessible substitutions, missing predictions filled with the VEP's most benign score)AlphaMissense (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)AlphaMissense: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions with gaps filled
25.3406122562259 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, per-protein AUROC on shared variants, ClinVar P/LP versus gnomAD v4.1 missense, proteins with at least 10 of each)AlphScore (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical set: ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD v4.1 missense (819 proteins)AlphScore: Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical benchmark: pairwise AUROC win rate, ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD missense
33.45524926 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)AlphScore (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)AlphScore: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets
10.95785441 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against the five top-ranked VEPs (column top_5_winrate; the five are not listed in the table), |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)AlphScore (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)AlphScore: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets
32.2722878972878 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, direct DMS assays only)AlphScore (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)AlphScore: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, direct assays only
34.3058374946919 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, indirect DMS assays only)AlphScore (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)AlphScore: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, indirect assays only
33.455249258561 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, SNV-accessible substitutions only)AlphScore (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)AlphScore: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions only
34.7025513155192 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS, SNV-accessible substitutions, missing predictions filled with the VEP's most benign score)AlphScore (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)AlphScore: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions with gaps filled
71.7872363160532 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, per-protein AUROC on shared variants, ClinVar P/LP versus gnomAD v4.1 missense, proteins with at least 10 of each)BayesDel_noAF (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical set: ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD v4.1 missense (819 proteins)BayesDel_noAF: Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical benchmark: pairwise AUROC win rate, ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD missense
57.10064837 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)BayesDel_noAF (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BayesDel_noAF: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets
6 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against the five top-ranked VEPs (column top_5_winrate; the five are not listed in the table), |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)BayesDel_noAF (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BayesDel_noAF: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets
56.6324127261627 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, direct DMS assays only)BayesDel_noAF (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BayesDel_noAF: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, direct assays only
57.4243527961117 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, indirect DMS assays only)BayesDel_noAF (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BayesDel_noAF: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, indirect assays only
57.1006483695923 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, SNV-accessible substitutions only)BayesDel_noAF (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BayesDel_noAF: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions only
58.2494344526282 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS, SNV-accessible substitutions, missing predictions filled with the VEP's most benign score)BayesDel_noAF (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BayesDel_noAF: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions with gaps filled
66.8625108589117 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, per-protein AUROC on shared variants, ClinVar P/LP versus gnomAD v4.1 missense, proteins with at least 10 of each)BayesDel (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical set: ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD v4.1 missense (819 proteins)BayesDel: Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical benchmark: pairwise AUROC win rate, ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD missense
56.91613959 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)BayesDel (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BayesDel: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets
5.444444444 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against the five top-ranked VEPs (column top_5_winrate; the five are not listed in the table), |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)BayesDel (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BayesDel: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets
56.7713016150516 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, direct DMS assays only)BayesDel (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BayesDel: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, direct assays only
57.0109930077519 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, indirect DMS assays only)BayesDel (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BayesDel: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, indirect assays only
56.9161395913335 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, SNV-accessible substitutions only)BayesDel (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BayesDel: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions only
58.1254265161203 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS, SNV-accessible substitutions, missing predictions filled with the VEP's most benign score)BayesDel (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BayesDel: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions with gaps filled
11.2513715328096 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, per-protein AUROC on shared variants, ClinVar P/LP versus gnomAD v4.1 missense, proteins with at least 10 of each)BLOSUM62 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical set: ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD v4.1 missense (819 proteins)BLOSUM62: Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical benchmark: pairwise AUROC win rate, ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD missense
14.87319408 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)BLOSUM62 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BLOSUM62: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets
1.111111111 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against the five top-ranked VEPs (column top_5_winrate; the five are not listed in the table), |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)BLOSUM62 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BLOSUM62: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets
13.7437678062678 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, direct DMS assays only)BLOSUM62 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BLOSUM62: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, direct assays only
15.6802443199502 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, indirect DMS assays only)BLOSUM62 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BLOSUM62: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, indirect assays only
14.6755214245133 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, SNV-accessible substitutions only)BLOSUM62 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BLOSUM62: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions only
15.5522147291004 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS, SNV-accessible substitutions, missing predictions filled with the VEP's most benign score)BLOSUM62 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)BLOSUM62: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions with gaps filled
34.98950589 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)CADD_1.6 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)CADD_1.6: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets
1.222222222 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against the five top-ranked VEPs (column top_5_winrate; the five are not listed in the table), |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)CADD_1.6 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)CADD_1.6: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets
34.4100401912901 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, direct DMS assays only)CADD_1.6 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)CADD_1.6: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, direct assays only
35.3831510041601 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, indirect DMS assays only)CADD_1.6 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)CADD_1.6: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, indirect assays only
35.0482029805984 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, SNV-accessible substitutions only)CADD_1.6 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)CADD_1.6: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions only
36.9492893241954 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS, SNV-accessible substitutions, missing predictions filled with the VEP's most benign score)CADD_1.6 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)CADD_1.6: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, SNV-accessible substitutions with gaps filled
52.0889425921533 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, per-protein AUROC on shared variants, ClinVar P/LP versus gnomAD v4.1 missense, proteins with at least 10 of each)CADD_1.7 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical set: ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD v4.1 missense (819 proteins)CADD_1.7: Livesey and Marsh 2025 clinical benchmark: pairwise AUROC win rate, ClinVar pathogenic versus gnomAD missense
40.31922489 percentPairwise win rate (average pairwise win rate against all other VEPs, |Spearman| with DMS on shared variants, 36 human DMS sets)CADD_1.7 (Livesey and Marsh 2025)Livesey and Marsh 2025 human DMS benchmark set (36 proteins)CADD_1.7: Livesey and Marsh 2025 DMS benchmark: pairwise |Spearman| win rate, all 36 DMS sets

Claims

Statements this source supports, each with where in the source it was checked.

Models, benchmarks and other records

Methods (27)

Configurations (99)

Benchmarks (1)

Protocols (6)

Datasets (1)

Evaluations (570)

Use cases (1)

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.

26 evidence rows matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6
Property and statementOriginal source and locationReview and provenance
attributes.artifact_sha256
1b0d792d1a5d3daa95545a7973cabb131c45e42c952e7e5a447a72deef1d1e70
Source metadata
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8)

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 13059_2025_3575_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx as published with PMC12016141
Retrieved: 2026-10-14T13:36:25Z

catalogued

No individual claim review recorded

Audit details

Field: attributes.artifact_sha256

Source artifact SHA-256: 1b0d792d1a5d3daa95545a7973cabb131c45e42c952e7e5a447a72deef1d1e70

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Doi
10.1186/s13059-025-03575-w
Source metadata
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8)

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 13059_2025_3575_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx as published with PMC12016141
Retrieved: 2026-10-14T13:36:25Z

catalogued

No individual claim review recorded

Audit details

Field: attributes.doi

Source artifact SHA-256: 1b0d792d1a5d3daa95545a7973cabb131c45e42c952e7e5a447a72deef1d1e70

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Licence
CC BY 4.0 (article licence; the workbook carries no separate licence)
Source metadata
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8)

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 13059_2025_3575_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx as published with PMC12016141
Retrieved: 2026-10-14T13:36:25Z

catalogued

No individual claim review recorded

Audit details

Field: attributes.licence

Source artifact SHA-256: 1b0d792d1a5d3daa95545a7973cabb131c45e42c952e7e5a447a72deef1d1e70

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Limitations
4 values
  • All numeric cells use the General number format; values are stored at up to 17 significant digits and printed_value records the shortest round-trip decimal of each stored number.
  • Table S1 has no row 3 and leaves the fitness assay blank for TPK1, SUMO1, UBE2I and CASP7, so the direct and indirect assay groups cannot be counted from it.
  • Table S2 has 93 rows for 97 benchmarked VEPs: BayesDel, EVmutation, PolyPhen-2 and VARITY rows each cover two scored variants.
  • Table S8 prints 'CADD' and 'COSMIS', which have no row in Table S2, and 'CPT' and 'fathmm-XF' where Tables S2 and S3 print 'CPT-1' and 'Fathmm-XF'/'FathmmXF'.
Source metadata
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8)

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 13059_2025_3575_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx as published with PMC12016141
Retrieved: 2026-10-14T13:36:25Z

catalogued

No individual claim review recorded

Audit details

Field: attributes.limitations

Source artifact SHA-256: 1b0d792d1a5d3daa95545a7973cabb131c45e42c952e7e5a447a72deef1d1e70

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Media type
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Source metadata
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8)

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 13059_2025_3575_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx as published with PMC12016141
Retrieved: 2026-10-14T13:36:25Z

catalogued

No individual claim review recorded

Audit details

Field: attributes.media_type

Source artifact SHA-256: 1b0d792d1a5d3daa95545a7973cabb131c45e42c952e7e5a447a72deef1d1e70

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Publication status
peer_reviewed
Source metadata
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8)

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 13059_2025_3575_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx as published with PMC12016141
Retrieved: 2026-10-14T13:36:25Z

catalogued

No individual claim review recorded

Audit details

Field: attributes.publication_status

Source artifact SHA-256: 1b0d792d1a5d3daa95545a7973cabb131c45e42c952e7e5a447a72deef1d1e70

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Retrieved at
2026-10-14T13:36:25Z
Source metadata
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8)

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 13059_2025_3575_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx as published with PMC12016141
Retrieved: 2026-10-14T13:36:25Z

catalogued

No individual claim review recorded

Audit details

Field: attributes.retrieved_at

Source artifact SHA-256: 1b0d792d1a5d3daa95545a7973cabb131c45e42c952e7e5a447a72deef1d1e70

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

attributes.review.artifact_sha256
1b0d792d1a5d3daa95545a7973cabb131c45e42c952e7e5a447a72deef1d1e70
Source metadata
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8)

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 13059_2025_3575_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx as published with PMC12016141
Retrieved: 2026-10-14T13:36:25Z

catalogued

No individual claim review recorded

Audit details

Field: attributes.review.artifact_sha256

Source artifact SHA-256: 1b0d792d1a5d3daa95545a7973cabb131c45e42c952e7e5a447a72deef1d1e70

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Review: method note
Re-downloaded from the recorded URL on 2026-10-14 and matched the SHA-256; URL, version, licence and limitations checked.
Source metadata
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8)

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 13059_2025_3575_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx as published with PMC12016141
Retrieved: 2026-10-14T13:36:25Z

catalogued

No individual claim review recorded

Audit details

Field: attributes.review.method_note

Source artifact SHA-256: 1b0d792d1a5d3daa95545a7973cabb131c45e42c952e7e5a447a72deef1d1e70

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Review method
2 values
  • source-hash-verification
  • ai-assisted-source-review
Source metadata
Livesey and Marsh 2025, Supplementary Material 2 (Tables S1-S8)

Original source ↗

No field-specific location recorded

Version: 13059_2025_3575_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx as published with PMC12016141
Retrieved: 2026-10-14T13:36:25Z

catalogued

No individual claim review recorded

Audit details

Field: attributes.review.method

Source artifact SHA-256: 1b0d792d1a5d3daa95545a7973cabb131c45e42c952e7e5a447a72deef1d1e70

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

How to read the evidence

Sources and history

Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6 · Record review: source checked

Excel workbook with the DMS dataset list, VEP list and types, full pairwise win-rate matrices and rank scores for the DMS and clinical benchmarks, bootstrap counts and sensitivity analyses.

1 source record and release history

Read original source

Download this release (gzip)
Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: vep-lit-20261014-source-livesey2025-supplementary-2

areas
dna-genomes; proteins-complexes
contexts
research; clinical_research
url
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1186%2Fs13059-025-03575-w/MediaObjects/13059_2025_3575_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx
version
13059_2025_3575_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx as published with PMC12016141
doi
10.1186/s13059-025-03575-w
retrieved at
2026-10-14T13:36:25Z
artifact sha256
1b0d792d1a5d3daa95545a7973cabb131c45e42c952e7e5a447a72deef1d1e70
publication status
peer_reviewed
licence
CC BY 4.0 (article licence; the workbook carries no separate licence)
media type
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
source locator
Sheets 'Legends', 'Table S1' to 'Table S8', 'References'
limitations
All numeric cells use the General number format; values are stored at up to 17 significant digits and printed_value records the shortest round-trip decimal of each stored number.; Table S1 has no row 3 and leaves the fitness assay blank for TPK1, SUMO1, UBE2I and CASP7, so the direct and indirect assay groups cannot be counted from it.; Table S2 has 93 rows for 97 benchmarked VEPs: BayesDel, EVmutation, PolyPhen-2 and VARITY rows each cover two scored variants.; Table S8 prints 'CADD' and 'COSMIS', which have no row in Table S2, and 'CPT' and 'fathmm-XF' where Tables S2 and S3 print 'CPT-1' and 'Fathmm-XF'/'FathmmXF'.
review
reviewer: claude; reviewer note: Claude review agent; no human review claimed. Independent Claude (Opus 5.5) review agent, separate from the extraction agent that built this batch. Automated review only. Transcription, not reproduction.; reviewed at: 2026-10-14T15:30:00Z; artifact sha256: 1b0d792d1a5d3daa95545a7973cabb131c45e42c952e7e5a447a72deef1d1e70; retrieval url: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1186%2Fs13059-025-03575-w/MediaObjects/13059_2025_3575_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx; method: source-hash-verification; ai-assisted-source-review; method note: Re-downloaded from the recorded URL on 2026-10-14 and matched the SHA-256; URL, version, licence and limitations checked.; note: Hash matches.
Related records

Suggest a correction