Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 2 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.
2 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
91/100 · AStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Bulk RNA-seq from chicken using HiSeq 2000. Grade A (91/100) with outstanding base quality (Q30 97%, mean 38.1) but elevated duplication at 54.29% (scored 46/100). Superior read quality largely compensates for duplication; suitable for reuse with standard deduplication in pipelines.
The A 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
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.