Corpus 1,273 assessed · 1,174 scored · 643 reproduced ≥75 · 169 flagged ·∅ 74.1/100
← Dataset search

GSE182075

GEO

Provenance — who produced it, who reused it

Linked to 0 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.

No linked papers found in the corpus yet.

Deep data QC

67/100 · D

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

What this means
claude:haiku

Bulk RNA-seq with paradoxically high base quality (mean_BQ=39.8, Q30=97.2%) severely compromised by massive adapter contamination (22.45%) and extreme duplication (75.61%); both technical failures score zero and indicate a problematic sequencing run; not recommended for reuse.

Data type / assay
bulk-RNA-seq
Organism
Mus musculus
Instrument
Illumina HiSeq 4000
Platform
ILLUMINA
Read type
short-read
Files available
FASTQ (raw reads)
N numbers (samples, groups)
12 / 12 runs
Completeness
100%
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 111011228398 reported
total reads 367586849 reported
n content pct 0.007 measured
pct q20 bases 99 measured
pct q30 bases 97.2 measured
gc content pct 47.1 measured
mean read length 151 measured
mean base quality 39.8 measured
adapter content pct 22.45 measured
duplication rate pct 75.61 measured
supplementary file types TXT reported
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 67/100

The D 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 97.2 measured ×1 100%
mean base quality 39.8 measured ×0.6 100%
adapter content pct 22.45 measured ×0.4 0%
duplication rate pct 75.61 measured ×0.4 0%
QC cost 25 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 98