Corpus 1,272 assessed · 1,173 scored · 643 reproduced ≥75 · 168 flagged ·∅ 74.1/100
← Dataset search

ERR973613

ENA first seen 2018

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.

Reused by

1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.

Deep data QC

83/100 · B

Standardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured

What this means
claude:haiku

miRNA-Seq (Illumina HiSeq 1000, Homo sapiens), grade B. Superior base quality—pct_q30_bases=98 and mean_base_quality=38.3—with large depth (46.6M reads) ensure highly reliable miRNA quantification despite expected high duplication (94.52%). Evidence strength is low; provisional pending deep revalidation.

Data type / assay
bulk-RNA-seq
Organism
Homo sapiens
Instrument
Illumina HiSeq 1000
Platform
ILLUMINA
N numbers (samples, groups)
1 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 1630092415 reported
total reads 46574069 reported
n content pct 0.001 measured
pct q20 bases 99.3 measured
pct q30 bases 98 measured
gc content pct 49 measured
mean read length 35 measured
mean base quality 38.3 measured
adapter content pct 0 measured
duplication rate pct 94.52 measured
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 83/100

The B grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published bulk-RNA-seq thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.

pct q30 bases 98 measured ×1 100%
mean base quality 38.3 measured ×0.6 100%
adapter content pct 0 measured ×0.4 100%
duplication rate pct 94.52 measured ×0.4 0%
QC cost 11 s compute

measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0

Scientific quality

Based on hands-on reproduction of the papers that use this dataset. A reproducible paper that stands on this data is positive evidence; a flagged one is a prompt to look closer — never a verdict on the dataset itself without the evidence.

1 studies use it 1 reproduced mean score 89