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
97/100 · AStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Amplicon metagenome (feces). Grade A (97/100) — good reusable amplicon data with a notable caveat. Duplication rate is extremely high (98.5%, measured), suggesting heavy PCR bias or deep amplification that could distort relative abundance estimates in downstream analysis; however, Q30 bases at 89.1% (measured) are acceptable and all other quality metrics are clean, making this data viable with duplication-aware methods.
The A grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published amplicon 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