Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 3 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.
- High-Resolution Ribosome Profiling Defines Discrete Ribosome Elo... 2019 · 332 cites
2 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
68/100 · DStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Bulk RNA-seq (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) with D-grade score (68/100). Extreme duplication (89.69%, scoring 0/100) and high adapter content (18.12%, scoring 10/100) indicate failed library preparation or severe PCR overamplification; high Phred scores (Q30 96.1%) cannot compensate for amplification bias. Provisional reading only; deep measured pass pending due to HTTP fetch error and duplication crisis.
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.
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.