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
77/100 · CStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
WGS (A. baumannii, NextSeq 500), grade C=77/100. Q30 at 83.6% (scored 68/100) is the primary limiter, falling below A/B thresholds; duplication at 15.06% (scored 78/100) is acceptable. Large depth (71M reads) and mean quality 32.6 permit assembly and variant calling but lower Q30 reduces small-variant sensitivity.
The C 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.