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

SRR1174275

SRA

Provenance — who produced it, who reused it

Linked to 0 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.

No linked papers found in the corpus yet.

Deep data QC

83/100 · B

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

What this means
claude:haiku

RNA-Seq (cnidarian, HiSeq 2000), very large dataset (466M reads), grade B=85/100. Duplication at 73.92% (scored 2/100) severely limits the score despite excellent Q30 (95.2%) and base quality (36.7%); adapter (2.27%) is acceptable. High duplication compromises unique-transcript representation; assess library complexity carefully.

Data type / assay
bulk-RNA-seq
Organism
Hydractinia symbiolongicarpus
Instrument
Illumina HiSeq 2000
Platform
ILLUMINA
N numbers (samples, groups)
1 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 93340494800 reported
total reads 466702474 reported
n content pct 0.008 measured
pct q20 bases 97.8 measured
pct q30 bases 95.2 measured
gc content pct 43.3 measured
mean read length 100 measured
mean base quality 36.7 measured
adapter content pct 2.27 measured
duplication rate pct 73.92 measured
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 83/100

The B 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 95.2 measured ×1 100%
mean base quality 36.7 measured ×0.6 100%
adapter content pct 2.27 measured ×0.4 99%
duplication rate pct 73.92 measured ×0.4 2%
QC cost 29 s compute

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 flagged mean score 68