Corpus 1,272 assessed · 1,173 scored · 643 reproduced ≥75 · 168 flagged ·∅ 74.1/100
← Dataset search

PRJNA574742

BioProject

Provenance — who produced it, who reused it

Linked to 0 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.

No linked papers found in the corpus yet.

Deep data QC

87/100 · B

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 X Ten generated 2.26 billion 150 bp reads at 96.8% Q20 and 92.8% Q30 across 676 Gb, providing deep coding-region coverage. The 54.2% GC is elevated relative to genome-wide averages, consistent with exonic enrichment; enables sensitive rare-variant discovery and compound-heterozygous genotyping in clinical or research populations.

Data type / assay
WES
Organism
Homo sapiens
Instrument
HiSeq X Ten
Platform
ILLUMINA
N numbers (samples, groups)
42 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 676801709700 reported
total reads 2256005699 reported
n content pct 0.001 measured
pct q20 bases 96.8 measured
pct q30 bases 92.8 measured
gc content pct 54.2 measured
mean read length 150 measured
mean base quality 35.7 measured
adapter content pct 40.35 measured
duplication rate pct 6.14 measured
mean target coverage 10916.2 extrapolated
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 87/100

The B 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 10916.2 extrapolated ×1.2 100%
pct q30 bases 92.8 measured ×1 100%
duplication rate pct 6.14 measured ×0.5 100%
adapter content pct 40.35 measured ×0.4 0%
QC cost 20 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 1 flagged mean score 30