Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 2 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.
2 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
89/100 · BStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Bulk RNA-seq of Gallus gallus. Grade B, 89/100 with all metrics measured. Severely elevated duplication (60.8%) is the critical limitation—representing heavy PCR bias that distorts transcript abundance and reduces effective sequencing depth. Q30 bases (93.3%) and quality (36) are excellent, but duplication restricts use to qualitative studies with strict deduplication and variance correction.
The B 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.