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

SRP218543

SRA

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.

Reused by

2 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.

Deep data QC

100/100 · A

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

What this means
claude:haiku

Homo sapiens bulk RNA-seq (Illumina HiSeq 4000). Grade A (100/100) with perfect QC: 97.5% Q30 bases, minimal duplication (13.89%), and massive scale (9.4 billion reads, 2.5 trillion bases). Pristine library prep and sequencing quality support robust differential expression and discovery. Ideal for reuse and meta-analyses.

Data type / assay
bulk-RNA-seq
Organism
Homo sapiens
Instrument
Illumina HiSeq 4000
Platform
ILLUMINA
N numbers (samples, groups)
243 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 2547127154859 reported
total reads 9380601501 reported
n content pct 0.001 measured
pct q20 bases 98.3 measured
pct q30 bases 97.5 measured
gc content pct 50.2 measured
mean read length 26 measured
mean base quality 34.6 measured
adapter content pct 0 measured
duplication rate pct 13.89 measured
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 100/100

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.

pct q30 bases 97.5 measured ×1 100%
mean base quality 34.6 measured ×0.6 100%
adapter content pct 0 measured ×0.4 100%
duplication rate pct 13.89 measured ×0.4 100%

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 reproduced mean score 94