Which evaluations inform this question?
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.
PGB promoter strength maize protoplasts: A. thaliana: promoter strength prediction
Current source-reviewed mapping
Proxy evidence: transfer to this question is limited
This comparison can inform method selection for Arabidopsis thaliana promoter reporter experiments in maize protoplasts. Held-out promoter prediction remains a proxy for selecting newly designed candidates and requires validation in the intended experiment.
- Assessed endpoint
- Predicting STARR-seq core-promoter strength for Arabidopsis thaliana sequences in maize protoplasts, assessed by held-out R².
- Evaluation protocol
- PGB promoter strength maize protoplasts: A. thaliana: promoter strength prediction
- Computational task
- A reviewed task relationship is not recorded for this protocol.
- Input and population constraints
- 170 bp core-promoter sequences from Arabidopsis thaliana, measured in the maize protoplasts reporter system; use this exact protocol and its two evaluated configurations.
- AgroNT uses task-specific regression with IA3 fine-tuning; the comparator is the task-specific CNN from Jores et al. Preserve assay-specific model identity.
- Compare R² only within this protocol. Do not pool assay hosts, sequence species or promoter and terminator tasks.
Limits on interpretation
- Author-reported comparison, source checked but not independently reproduced. No confidence intervals or run-variability estimate are supplied.
- Fitted checkpoint hashes, exact scoring counts, task-specific seeds and executable split manifests are unreported or unextracted.
- No prospective design success, endogenous expression, stable-plant, tissue-transfer or crop-yield claim. R² is not candidate hit rate.
Automated source review · 2026-09-28 · Codex research curation
Primary-source curation and separate automated cross-review checked exact evidence identities, comparator coverage, endpoint relevance and transfer limits. No new execution, human scientific review, independent replication 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
PGB promoter strength evaluation of AgroNT: promoter strength, maize protoplasts on promoter strength prediction, scored with R².
- Population and split
- Not reported · Not reported
- Inputs and adaptation
- Not reported · 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 |
|---|
| r2 | 0.62 coefficient of determination · higher | Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Not reported 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.
Author-reported evaluation · Source checked
PGB promoter strength evaluation of CNN (Jores et al.): promoter strength, maize protoplasts on promoter strength prediction, scored with R².
- Population and split
- Not reported · Not reported
- Inputs and adaptation
- Not reported · 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 |
|---|
| r2 | 0.58 coefficient of determination · higher | Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Not reported 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-plant-promoter-maize-protoplasts-a-thaliana · revision 1
Initial applicability review: primary sources and separate automated cross-review support this exact protocol, its complete selected comparator group and the stated limits.
Reviewed evidence fingerprint 51291aa4704085356887b47aa8c1326b2527631d19b94aaa9422bd7aae65c73d
PGB promoter strength maize protoplasts: S. bicolor: promoter strength prediction
Current source-reviewed mapping
Proxy evidence: transfer to this question is limited
This comparison can inform method selection for Sorghum bicolor promoter reporter experiments in maize protoplasts. Held-out promoter prediction remains a proxy for selecting newly designed candidates and requires validation in the intended experiment.
- Assessed endpoint
- Predicting STARR-seq core-promoter strength for Sorghum bicolor sequences in maize protoplasts, assessed by held-out R².
- Evaluation protocol
- PGB promoter strength maize protoplasts: S. bicolor: promoter strength prediction
- Computational task
- A reviewed task relationship is not recorded for this protocol.
- Input and population constraints
- 170 bp core-promoter sequences from Sorghum bicolor, measured in the maize protoplasts reporter system; use this exact protocol and its two evaluated configurations.
- AgroNT uses task-specific regression with IA3 fine-tuning; the comparator is the task-specific CNN from Jores et al. Preserve assay-specific model identity.
- Compare R² only within this protocol. Do not pool assay hosts, sequence species or promoter and terminator tasks.
Limits on interpretation
- Author-reported comparison, source checked but not independently reproduced. No confidence intervals or run-variability estimate are supplied.
- Fitted checkpoint hashes, exact scoring counts, task-specific seeds and executable split manifests are unreported or unextracted.
- No prospective design success, endogenous expression, stable-plant, tissue-transfer or crop-yield claim. R² is not candidate hit rate.
Automated source review · 2026-09-28 · Codex research curation
Primary-source curation and separate automated cross-review checked exact evidence identities, comparator coverage, endpoint relevance and transfer limits. No new execution, human scientific review, independent replication 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
PGB promoter strength evaluation of AgroNT: promoter strength, maize protoplasts on promoter strength prediction, scored with R².
- Population and split
- Not reported · Not reported
- Inputs and adaptation
- Not reported · 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 |
|---|
| r2 | 0.68 coefficient of determination · higher | Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Not reported 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.
Author-reported evaluation · Source checked
PGB promoter strength evaluation of CNN (Jores et al.): promoter strength, maize protoplasts on promoter strength prediction, scored with R².
- Population and split
- Not reported · Not reported
- Inputs and adaptation
- Not reported · 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 |
|---|
| r2 | 0.65 coefficient of determination · higher | Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Not reported 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-plant-promoter-maize-protoplasts-s-bicolor · revision 1
Initial applicability review: primary sources and separate automated cross-review support this exact protocol, its complete selected comparator group and the stated limits.
Reviewed evidence fingerprint 5471e1de9dd6577dcea6493aa23ff5afc73249f06b6e80e63f0a4727db673254
PGB promoter strength maize protoplasts: Z. mays: promoter strength prediction
Current source-reviewed mapping
Proxy evidence: transfer to this question is limited
This comparison can inform method selection for Zea mays promoter reporter experiments in maize protoplasts. Held-out promoter prediction remains a proxy for selecting newly designed candidates and requires validation in the intended experiment.
- Assessed endpoint
- Predicting STARR-seq core-promoter strength for Zea mays sequences in maize protoplasts, assessed by held-out R².
- Evaluation protocol
- PGB promoter strength maize protoplasts: Z. mays: promoter strength prediction
- Computational task
- A reviewed task relationship is not recorded for this protocol.
- Input and population constraints
- 170 bp core-promoter sequences from Zea mays, measured in the maize protoplasts reporter system; use this exact protocol and its two evaluated configurations.
- AgroNT uses task-specific regression with IA3 fine-tuning; the comparator is the task-specific CNN from Jores et al. Preserve assay-specific model identity.
- Compare R² only within this protocol. Do not pool assay hosts, sequence species or promoter and terminator tasks.
Limits on interpretation
- Author-reported comparison, source checked but not independently reproduced. No confidence intervals or run-variability estimate are supplied.
- Fitted checkpoint hashes, exact scoring counts, task-specific seeds and executable split manifests are unreported or unextracted.
- No prospective design success, endogenous expression, stable-plant, tissue-transfer or crop-yield claim. R² is not candidate hit rate.
Automated source review · 2026-09-28 · Codex research curation
Primary-source curation and separate automated cross-review checked exact evidence identities, comparator coverage, endpoint relevance and transfer limits. No new execution, human scientific review, independent replication 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
PGB promoter strength evaluation of AgroNT: promoter strength, maize protoplasts on promoter strength prediction, scored with R².
- Population and split
- Not reported · Not reported
- Inputs and adaptation
- Not reported · 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 |
|---|
| r2 | 0.71 coefficient of determination · higher | Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Not reported 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.
Author-reported evaluation · Source checked
PGB promoter strength evaluation of CNN (Jores et al.): promoter strength, maize protoplasts on promoter strength prediction, scored with R².
- Population and split
- Not reported · Not reported
- Inputs and adaptation
- Not reported · 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 |
|---|
| r2 | 0.69 coefficient of determination · higher | Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Not reported 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-plant-promoter-maize-protoplasts-z-mays · revision 1
Initial applicability review: primary sources and separate automated cross-review support this exact protocol, its complete selected comparator group and the stated limits.
Reviewed evidence fingerprint 475520831178904bc0c433ecd74d16b6336f195ce222cee5a249c18d6a36c6bc
PGB promoter strength tobacco leaves: A. thaliana: promoter strength prediction
Current source-reviewed mapping
Proxy evidence: transfer to this question is limited
This comparison can inform method selection for Arabidopsis thaliana promoter reporter experiments in tobacco leaves. Held-out promoter prediction remains a proxy for selecting newly designed candidates and requires validation in the intended experiment.
- Assessed endpoint
- Predicting STARR-seq core-promoter strength for Arabidopsis thaliana sequences in tobacco leaves, assessed by held-out R².
- Evaluation protocol
- PGB promoter strength tobacco leaves: A. thaliana: promoter strength prediction
- Computational task
- A reviewed task relationship is not recorded for this protocol.
- Input and population constraints
- 170 bp core-promoter sequences from Arabidopsis thaliana, measured in the tobacco leaves reporter system; use this exact protocol and its two evaluated configurations.
- AgroNT uses task-specific regression with IA3 fine-tuning; the comparator is the task-specific CNN from Jores et al. Preserve assay-specific model identity.
- Compare R² only within this protocol. Do not pool assay hosts, sequence species or promoter and terminator tasks.
Limits on interpretation
- Author-reported comparison, source checked but not independently reproduced. No confidence intervals or run-variability estimate are supplied.
- Fitted checkpoint hashes, exact scoring counts, task-specific seeds and executable split manifests are unreported or unextracted.
- No prospective design success, endogenous expression, stable-plant, tissue-transfer or crop-yield claim. R² is not candidate hit rate.
Automated source review · 2026-09-28 · Codex research curation
Primary-source curation and separate automated cross-review checked exact evidence identities, comparator coverage, endpoint relevance and transfer limits. No new execution, human scientific review, independent replication 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
PGB promoter strength evaluation of AgroNT: promoter strength, tobacco leaves on promoter strength prediction, scored with R².
- Population and split
- Not reported · Not reported
- Inputs and adaptation
- Not reported · 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 |
|---|
| r2 | 0.62 coefficient of determination · higher | Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Not reported 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.
Author-reported evaluation · Source checked
PGB promoter strength evaluation of CNN (Jores et al.): promoter strength, tobacco leaves on promoter strength prediction, scored with R².
- Population and split
- Not reported · Not reported
- Inputs and adaptation
- Not reported · 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 |
|---|
| r2 | 0.57 coefficient of determination · higher | Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Not reported 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-plant-promoter-tobacco-leaves-a-thaliana · revision 1
Initial applicability review: primary sources and separate automated cross-review support this exact protocol, its complete selected comparator group and the stated limits.
Reviewed evidence fingerprint 0ff8f7e2efa02a37a5ea958b65bb39cecb4c3bd5ede6320efe03cb5ba6b7ab81
PGB promoter strength tobacco leaves: S. bicolor: promoter strength prediction
Current source-reviewed mapping
Proxy evidence: transfer to this question is limited
This comparison can inform method selection for Sorghum bicolor promoter reporter experiments in tobacco leaves. Held-out promoter prediction remains a proxy for selecting newly designed candidates and requires validation in the intended experiment.
- Assessed endpoint
- Predicting STARR-seq core-promoter strength for Sorghum bicolor sequences in tobacco leaves, assessed by held-out R².
- Evaluation protocol
- PGB promoter strength tobacco leaves: S. bicolor: promoter strength prediction
- Computational task
- A reviewed task relationship is not recorded for this protocol.
- Input and population constraints
- 170 bp core-promoter sequences from Sorghum bicolor, measured in the tobacco leaves reporter system; use this exact protocol and its two evaluated configurations.
- AgroNT uses task-specific regression with IA3 fine-tuning; the comparator is the task-specific CNN from Jores et al. Preserve assay-specific model identity.
- Compare R² only within this protocol. Do not pool assay hosts, sequence species or promoter and terminator tasks.
Limits on interpretation
- Author-reported comparison, source checked but not independently reproduced. No confidence intervals or run-variability estimate are supplied.
- Fitted checkpoint hashes, exact scoring counts, task-specific seeds and executable split manifests are unreported or unextracted.
- No prospective design success, endogenous expression, stable-plant, tissue-transfer or crop-yield claim. R² is not candidate hit rate.
Automated source review · 2026-09-28 · Codex research curation
Primary-source curation and separate automated cross-review checked exact evidence identities, comparator coverage, endpoint relevance and transfer limits. No new execution, human scientific review, independent replication 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
PGB promoter strength evaluation of AgroNT: promoter strength, tobacco leaves on promoter strength prediction, scored with R².
- Population and split
- Not reported · Not reported
- Inputs and adaptation
- Not reported · 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 |
|---|
| r2 | 0.74 coefficient of determination · higher | Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Not reported 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.
Author-reported evaluation · Source checked
PGB promoter strength evaluation of CNN (Jores et al.): promoter strength, tobacco leaves on promoter strength prediction, scored with R².
- Population and split
- Not reported · Not reported
- Inputs and adaptation
- Not reported · 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 |
|---|
| r2 | 0.71 coefficient of determination · higher | Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Not reported 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-plant-promoter-tobacco-leaves-s-bicolor · revision 1
Initial applicability review: primary sources and separate automated cross-review support this exact protocol, its complete selected comparator group and the stated limits.
Reviewed evidence fingerprint 133865d16861493f70b2c49fd1c97a40a92964a2ceb2358a8d22cc7b72838611
PGB promoter strength tobacco leaves: Z. mays: promoter strength prediction
Current source-reviewed mapping
Proxy evidence: transfer to this question is limited
This comparison can inform method selection for Zea mays promoter reporter experiments in tobacco leaves. Held-out promoter prediction remains a proxy for selecting newly designed candidates and requires validation in the intended experiment.
- Assessed endpoint
- Predicting STARR-seq core-promoter strength for Zea mays sequences in tobacco leaves, assessed by held-out R².
- Evaluation protocol
- PGB promoter strength tobacco leaves: Z. mays: promoter strength prediction
- Computational task
- A reviewed task relationship is not recorded for this protocol.
- Input and population constraints
- 170 bp core-promoter sequences from Zea mays, measured in the tobacco leaves reporter system; use this exact protocol and its two evaluated configurations.
- AgroNT uses task-specific regression with IA3 fine-tuning; the comparator is the task-specific CNN from Jores et al. Preserve assay-specific model identity.
- Compare R² only within this protocol. Do not pool assay hosts, sequence species or promoter and terminator tasks.
Limits on interpretation
- Author-reported comparison, source checked but not independently reproduced. No confidence intervals or run-variability estimate are supplied.
- Fitted checkpoint hashes, exact scoring counts, task-specific seeds and executable split manifests are unreported or unextracted.
- No prospective design success, endogenous expression, stable-plant, tissue-transfer or crop-yield claim. R² is not candidate hit rate.
Automated source review · 2026-09-28 · Codex research curation
Primary-source curation and separate automated cross-review checked exact evidence identities, comparator coverage, endpoint relevance and transfer limits. No new execution, human scientific review, independent replication 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
PGB promoter strength evaluation of AgroNT: promoter strength, tobacco leaves on promoter strength prediction, scored with R².
- Population and split
- Not reported · Not reported
- Inputs and adaptation
- Not reported · 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 |
|---|
| r2 | 0.75 coefficient of determination · higher | Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Not reported 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.
Author-reported evaluation · Source checked
PGB promoter strength evaluation of CNN (Jores et al.): promoter strength, tobacco leaves on promoter strength prediction, scored with R².
- Population and split
- Not reported · Not reported
- Inputs and adaptation
- Not reported · 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 |
|---|
| r2 | 0.73 coefficient of determination · higher | Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Not reported 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-plant-promoter-tobacco-leaves-z-mays · revision 1
Initial applicability review: primary sources and separate automated cross-review support this exact protocol, its complete selected comparator group and the stated limits.
Reviewed evidence fingerprint 2ae000a01a35c24d345e32e99953aebcc54e266459abadebd9875174f75804d6