Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 10 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.
10 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
95/100 · AStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
WGS (Escherichia coli). A grade (95/100), but evidence_strength is low (0.61). Excellent base quality (Q30=96.1%) supports variant analysis, but reported coverage (10M×) is extrapolated and implausible; verify actual depth-of-coverage post-mapping to confirm usability.
The A grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published WGS 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.