Question and applicability
Inspect the cfMethyl-Seq repeated-split sensitivity/specificity evidence before selecting a workflow and validation design for the intended cancer-detection population.
- Who this is for
- Clinical researchers scoping the available diagnostic-genomics evidence
- Computational researchers comparing exact evaluated configurations
- Research setting
Research and clinical research. See Clinical research scope for what the evidence does not establish.
- Biological setting
- cfMethyl-Seq achieves 80.7% all-stage cancer-detection sensitivity (95% CI 68.6-90.7) at 97.9% specificity, under a repeated random 25% test split (cohort 217 cancers/191 non-cancers, test n=102).
Outside this use case
- Tissue-of-origin identification (not ingested in this bounded intake)
- Prospective screening validation
Clinical research scope
Clinical applicability is not established as prospective screening performance: this is a repeated random test-split evaluation on one assembled cohort, not an independent prospective validation.
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.
cfMethyl-Seq random-split four-cancer detection
Current source-reviewed mapping
Direct evidence for the stated endpoint
A repeated-split cross-validated sensitivity/specificity figure at a declared specificity directly measures plasma cfDNA methylation cancer-detection performance, the declared endpoint.
- Assessed endpoint
- All-stage cancer-detection sensitivity (95% CI) at a declared specificity for cfMethyl-Seq on a repeated random 25% test split
- Evaluation protocol
- cfMethyl-Seq random-split four-cancer detection
- Computational task
- A reviewed task relationship is not recorded for this protocol.
- Input and population constraints
- Inspect every linked evaluation's source locator and preserved conflicts before citing a result.
- Do not combine this mapping's evaluations with any other protocol's results.
Limits on interpretation
- No foundation-model comparison
- No prospective screening benefit
- No independent reproduction
Automated source review · 2026-10-07 · Claude Sonnet AMP-integration worker, bounded transcription of Codex-checked primary values; independently reviewed by Codex (workbench/amp-supervision/primary-review.md, integration-review-corrections.md)
Bounded primary-source transcription, independently Codex-checked. No new model execution, independent experimental reproduction, qualified human scientific review or clinical validation.
Evaluated configurations
Each configuration below belongs to this protocol. Inspect its inputs, population and scoring conditions before comparing it with another evaluation.
Author-reported evaluation · Source checked
Scoped author-reported evidence candidate; no clinical recommendation.
Inspect results, conditions and reproduction (1 recorded result)
- Population and split
- 217 cancers /191 noncancers total; held-out repeated25% splits; test Fig3c n102 · 10 repeated random 75:25 train/test splits
- Inputs and adaptation
- Plasma cfMethyl-Seq methylation markers · Not reported
- Evaluation budget
- Not reported
- Runtime and memory
Runtime and memory measurements are not reported in this evaluation. A study budget is not a runtime or memory measurement.
Recorded results for this configuration| Metric | Value | Coverage | Uncertainty and source |
|---|
| sensitivity_at_97_9_percent_specificity | 80.7% percent · higher | Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | 95% CI 68.6%–90.7% Result provenance |
|---|
Evaluation methods, evidence and reproduction
No execution recipe has been verified for this exact configuration and evaluation. Inspect its methods and original run documentation before attempting reproduction.
Open the protocol's results and comparison checks →
Mapping sources and review metadata
Mapping use-case-mapping-amp-20261007-issue16 · revision 1
Add Codex-checked primary-source protocol evidence from the bounded AMP intake (rewire.it#365).
Reviewed evidence fingerprint a4557cbe344cb50f36f257abb924d6a0f31b765c965dd695fae27dd18cf9327b
Limitations and missing evidence
These gaps apply to the question as a whole. Absence of evidence is not a zero score.
- No per-run scored denominator beyond the printed test n=102 is inferred.
- A correction/source-reuse note on this source is tracked separately from the assay sensitivity/specificity values and must not be conflated with them.
Planned work
These plans do not contribute measured results or evaluated winners above.
Planned · Reviewed literature evidence is bounded (see evidence_gaps); closing the remaining decision gap needs a dedicated protocol/run task with frozen population and matched controls, tracked in rewire-benchmarks.
Contribute evidence or propose a correction
Evidence collection plan
Collecting evidenceMapped evidence already covers 1 evaluated endpoint, in the evaluated evidence above. The status above describes only the specific comparison in this plan, which remains open; it does not mean no evidence has been collected. The plan defines a comparison to investigate; it does not establish model performance or suitability.
Comparison question
Which measured methylation workflow detects tumour-derived plasma DNA and, where separately supported, identifies tissue of origin?
Baselines, outcomes and validation requirements
Baselines to include
- The conventional/author-introduced workflow measured in the linked primary source(s).
Outcomes to measure
- The declared endpoint in this use case's active mapping(s); see evidence_gaps for what remains open.
Validation requirements
- Independent held-out population matched to the intended clinical setting.
- Qualified human scientific review before any clinical-validation claim.
Next collection task
A dedicated rewire-benchmarks protocol/run task with an independent prospective cohort and an explicit tissue-of-origin evaluation if pursued.
Sources and review
Automated source review · 2026-10-07 · Claude Sonnet AMP-integration worker, bounded transcription of Codex-checked primary values; independently reviewed by Codex (workbench/amp-supervision/primary-review.md, integration-review-corrections.md)
Bounded primary-source transcription, independently Codex-checked. No new model execution, independent experimental reproduction, qualified human scientific review or clinical validation.
Release provenance and downloads
Release 2026-10-07-1448159e6a81
Use-case input digest d60fd7f669bfec7bd34ec6e5080d8e1cb4e8186f8286ead60888848f1e20e001
Download questions, collection plans and review metadata (JSON) · Verify release checksums
Question use-case-plasma-ctdna-methylation. Any numerical results on this page come from this release's existing evaluation records.