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

PRJEB64684

BioProject

Provenance — who produced it, who reused it

Linked to 1 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.

Reused by

1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.

Deep data QC

25/100 · F

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

What this means
claude:haiku

Long-read bulk RNA-seq from Oxford Nanopore MinION. Grade F, 25/100—unsuitable for reuse. Only 9.5% of bases reach Q30 (0/100 score) and mean quality 19.4 (0/100 score) require extensive error correction. With 53.4% duplication, this falls far short of acceptable accuracy for transcript or variant discovery.

Data type / assay
bulk-RNA-seq
Organism
Suid herpesvirus 1 strain Kaplan
Instrument
MinION
Platform
OXFORD_NANOPORE
Read type
long-read
Files available
FASTQ (raw reads), submitted files
N numbers (samples, groups)
36 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 25435300887 reported
total reads 22065001 reported
n content pct 0 measured
pct q20 bases 54.6 measured
pct q30 bases 9.5 measured
gc content pct 44.9 measured
mean read length 1103.7 measured
mean base quality 19.4 measured
adapter content pct 0 measured
duplication rate pct 53.38 measured
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 25/100

The F 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 9.5 measured ×1 0%
mean base quality 19.4 measured ×0.6 0%
adapter content pct 0 measured ×0.4 100%
duplication rate pct 53.38 measured ×0.4 48%
QC cost 24 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 mean score 59