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
83/100 · BStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
This is a small-RNA (miRNA-Seq) library from mouse, sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq 2000, and overall it earns a solid B (83/100) as a usable but caveated dataset. Base quality is the main strength: Q30 of 95.5%, mean base quality of 36.4, and essentially zero adapter contamination mean the reads themselves are clean and confidently called, which is reassuring for accurate miRNA mapping. The one metric dragging the grade down is the 96% duplication rate, which scored 0/100—though for a miRNA-Seq library this is partly expected, since the small, finite repertoire of mature miRNAs and low input naturally produce many identical reads rather than indicating a failed library, so treat it as a complexity caveat rather than a disqualifier. Note that evidence_strength is 1, meaning the quality metrics here were genuinely measured rather than extrapolated, so this reading is well-grounded and not provisional, though you should still confirm the library complexity supports your specific analysis (e.g., quantifying low-abundance miRNAs) before reuse.
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.
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.