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
55/100 · FStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Severely compromised ncRNA-seq dataset with near-total adapter contamination (95.07%) and extreme duplication (72.42%) dominating quality failure; the dataset is unsuitable for reliable ncRNA quantification without aggressive preprocessing, and the high duplication-to-adapter ratio suggests systematic library construction failure rather than recoverable trimming issues. Resequencing strongly recommended.
The F 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