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

PRJNA393963

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

93/100 · A

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

What this means
claude:haiku

Human whole-exome sequencing on HiSeq 2500 with 277 million 92 bp reads at 98.8% Q20 and 96.2% Q30 across 65.2 Gb provides comprehensive coding-region coverage for rare-variant discovery. The 51.7% GC is typical of exonic regions; minimal N-content and high base quality support sensitive detection of loss-of-function mutations and complex rearrangements in clinical or research contexts.

Data type / assay
WES
Organism
Homo sapiens
Instrument
Illumina HiSeq 2500
Platform
ILLUMINA
N numbers (samples, groups)
8 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 65216601438 reported
total reads 277246850 reported
n content pct 0.145 measured
pct q20 bases 98.8 measured
pct q30 bases 96.2 measured
gc content pct 51.7 measured
mean read length 92 measured
mean base quality 37.1 measured
adapter content pct 0 measured
duplication rate pct 26.35 measured
mean target coverage 1051.9 extrapolated
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 93/100

The A grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published WES thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.

mean target coverage 1051.9 extrapolated ×1.2 100%
pct q30 bases 96.2 measured ×1 100%
duplication rate pct 26.35 measured ×0.5 56%
adapter content pct 0 measured ×0.4 100%
QC cost 7 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 64