The advertised criteria for selection to Step 3 were as follows: "The top 5 teams from Step #1 and the top 20–25 teams from Step #2 (totaling 25 teams) will be invited to advance to Step #3, if they predicted in their top 200 molecules (Step #1) or top 50 molecules (Step #2) true positives with at least three different chemical scaffolds."
I noticed that only 10 teams were ultimately selected for Step 3, and that the criteria for Step 2 appear to have been flexibilized, allowing two teams that identified only two different chemical scaffolds to advance to Step 3.
Given this adjustment, would it be possible to also consider some flexibility for Step 1? Some teams in Step 1 successfully identified four different chemical scaffolds but were not selected.
I would appreciate clarification on this matter, and whether there is room to include additional qualifying teams from Step 1 under similar considerations — while still respecting the maximum limit of 25 teams.
Created by Rafael Borges rjborges Yes, you are correct: we decided to be more generous than originally announced with the Step #2 cut-off to advance more participants to Step #3.
In Step #3, teams can select up to 50 compounds only. Advancing to Step #3 workflows that, in Step #2, identified only 1 active compound out of 50 predicted comes with a high risk, especially since purchasing and testing molecules is resource intensive and costly. This is a risk that we are already taking with two teams that placed in the top 5 in Step #1, and that we cannot afford to expand.