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.
1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
63/100 · DStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Short-read amplicon of human gut metagenome scoring D-grade (63/100), limited by Q30 at 78.9% (measured, scored 44/100) and elevated N-content (0.177%, measured)—unusual for amplicon and suggesting reads of uncertain origin or primer mispriming. Expected high duplication (92.6%) is amplicon-appropriate; low Q30 and N anomaly restrict reuse to low-stringency profiling only.
The D grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published amplicon 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