Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 2,083 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.
80 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
Standardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained
No quantitative QC rubric exists for this data type yet, so it is deliberately left unscored — this is an honest "not applicable", not a poor rating.
measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0 · provisional — verify independently
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.
- Genome-wide prediction of DNase I hypersensitivity using gen... L1 79/100
- Sequencing of human genomes with nanopore technology. L1 75/100
- CRISPR/Cas9 Screens Reveal Multiple Layers of B cell CD40 Re... L1 No data access
- Comprehensive enhancer-target gene assignments improve gene...
- Single-Cell Hi-C Technologies and Computational Data Analysi... L1 80/100
- Integrated analysis of post-transcriptional regulations reve...⚑ L1 32/100 ⚑