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
61/100 · DStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Low-coverage long-read WGS of human genome with excellent intrinsic read quality but severely limited depth. Mean coverage of 4.8× (extrapolated, not measured) is far below the recommended 15–30× for variant discovery; evidence strength is provisional (0.61). While technical QC is outstanding (Q30=96.7%, mean quality=80.1), the depth limitation makes this unsuitable for reuse without significant additional sequencing.
The D grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published WGS 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