Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 4 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.
4 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
74/100 · CStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Bulk RNA-seq (101bp, HiSeq 2500, Zaire ebolavirus). Grade C (74/100): borderline usability. Duplication (43.75%), adapter content (7.46%), and Q30 (84.6%) all contribute modestly to the lower grade; the combination of library-prep artifacts and modest base quality limits depth efficiency.
The C 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.