Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 5 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.
- Dissecting transcriptomic signatures of neuronal differentiation... 2020 · 195 cites
- Identification of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii strains for gut m... 2021 · 146 cites
3 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
100/100 · AStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Human bulk-RNA-seq with perfect-score quality (Q30 93.2%, mean base quality 36.3) and low duplication (27.83%), suitable for reuse despite HTTP access limitations; measured metrics confirm data integrity.
The A 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.