rewire.itbenchmarks

Use caseDNA and genomesResearch and clinical research

Review EGFR lung-cancer actionability evidence

Which systems retrieve correctly scoped sensitivity and resistance evidence for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC?

In this release 0 evaluated endpoints · 0 tested configurations · No current evaluated evidence · 3 recorded evidence gaps

Evidence collection plan

Collection planned

Evidence collection is planned for this question. The plan defines a comparison to investigate; it does not establish model performance or suitability.

Comparison question

Does retrieval-assisted review recover more correctly scoped sensitivity/resistance evidence with fewer unsupported assertions than a versioned lookup/manual-search workflow at equal review effort?

Baselines to include

  • Versioned knowledgebase lookup plus conventional manual primary-source review

Outcomes to measure

  • Relevant-evidence recall and unsupported-assertion rate
  • Tumour, treatment-line, direction, date and citation fidelity
  • Contradiction handling, missing-information handling and review time

Validation requirements

  • Freeze the question, corpus and knowledge cutoff; hold out studies and molecular profiles.
  • Preserve native evidence tiers and include contradictory or inapplicable evidence.
  • Audit citation support and retain unknown clinical information.
  • Use independent qualified molecular-oncology adjudication.
  • Confirm source-specific benchmarking permissions and separate evidence review from treatment and eligibility outcomes.

Next collection task

Prepare a versioned NSCLC evidence-review specification and extraction matrix covering biomarker, regimen, line, prior treatment, direction, source and date, with source-permission dependencies recorded separately.

Question and applicability

Choose an evidence-review system that connects tumour findings to relevant sensitivity and resistance studies while exposing contradictions and missing context.

Who this is for
  • Molecular tumour-board scientists
  • Oncologists and clinical molecular scientists reviewing evidence
Research setting

Research and clinical research. See Clinical research scope for what the evidence does not establish.

Biological setting
Advanced EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer, including progression after EGFR-targeted therapy. Treatment history and evidence date are part of every comparison.

Outside this use case

  • Evidence retrieval does not select a treatment or establish individual treatment benefit.
  • Trial eligibility, response and survival require separate evaluations.
  • Missing evidence does not establish resistance, and evidence tiers from different systems are not interchangeable.

Inputs and expected output

Inputs you need

  • Interpreted biomarker, genome build/transcript, histology, stage and co-alterations
  • Prior therapies, progression and sampling dates, including tissue or plasma source
  • Jurisdiction, evidence cutoff and a versioned source corpus

Expected output

Source-linked evidence assertions with regimen, sensitivity or resistance direction, treatment setting, native evidence tier, contradictions and unresolved information.

Clinical research scope

Clinical research on support for qualified molecular-oncology evidence review. Applicability depends on tumour, biomarker, prior therapy, sampling context, jurisdiction and evidence date.

Evaluated evidence

Evidence is grouped by its protocol. Relevance refers to the stated endpoint and context; it is separate from clinical validation and from the review method. Limits specific to each evaluation are listed with it.

No model comparison has been collected for this question yet.

Relevant methods and studies may exist outside this collection.

View the evidence plan and next collection task

Limitations and missing evidence

These gaps apply to the question as a whole. Absence of evidence is not a zero score.

  • Independently adjudicated case/evidence sets and comparisons at equal review effort remain to be collected.
  • Corrected guidance and primary studies need detailed context extraction and qualified molecular-oncology review.
  • Some comparators require specific reuse permission; public papers may not provide reusable patient-level data.

Contribute evidence or propose a correction

Sources and review

Automated source review · 2026-09-28 · Codex

Automated review of Rewire's workflow definition and sourced research brief against the agreed exploration and backlog. No human expert approval, model-applicability assessment or clinical validation is claimed.

Release provenance and downloads

Release 2026-09-29-06401fd5b220

Use-case input digest a0dd27a5f430ec387d309fd6e8615083250873ce4cff5e882c6fb8458ef80e95

Download questions, collection plans and review metadata (JSON) · Verify release checksums

Question use-case-egfr-nsclc-actionability-resistance-evidence. Any numerical results on this page come from this release's existing evaluation records.