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
74/100 · CStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
RNA-seq with moderate-to-high duplication (61.75%, weight-0.4 metric, scored 29/100) and suboptimal Q30 (84.5%, weight-1 metric, scored 72/100), grading C. Likely reflects PCR-amplification bias in library prep. Usable for robust transcript quantification but prone to artifacts in low-abundance detection; conditional reuse with lenient thresholds.
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