Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 1 papers in the literature. Roles are inferred factual signals (who deposited the data vs who reused it), with counts — never a judgement about any author.
1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
32/100 · FStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Human amplicon sequencing catastrophically fails QC (32/100, F-grade) with Q30 bases at only 64.8% (0/100 score, weight 1)—base accuracy is unacceptable for clinical or research inference. Mean target coverage is extrapolated as 0, suggesting minimal or failed amplification; this reading is provisional pending deep validation. Duplication of 50.18% further compromises rare-variant detection. Do not reuse; re-sequencing required.
The F grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published amplicon thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.
measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0