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
88/100 · 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 profiled on an Illumina HiSeq 2500, and it earns a solid B (88/100) on a fully measured QC pass (evidence_strength=1), so the reading is firm rather than provisional. Base quality is the dataset's strength — 95.4% of bases at Q30, a mean base quality of 37.8, and effectively zero adapter contamination (0%) despite the short 51 bp reads, meaning the per-base calls are trustworthy and reads are clean for mapping. The single factor dragging the grade down is a 62.39% duplication rate, which scored only 28/100; while high duplication is partly expected and biologically plausible in miRNA-Seq because a small repertoire of short mature miRNAs is sequenced very deeply, it still caps library complexity and can bias quantification, so you should rely on UMI-aware or duplication-tolerant counting if reusing these data. Overall the data are reusable for miRNA expression analysis, but treat duplication as the key caveat rather than a disqualifier.
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.