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
56/100 · FStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
WGS from Homo sapiens with grade-F and low evidence_strength (0.61); mean coverage 0.9× (extrapolated, not yet measured) is far below the 30–50× standard for clinical/research WGS and unsuitable for reliable variant calling. Base quality (Q30=87%) is acceptable but depth deficiency is disqualifying. Deep measured resequencing required; provisional reading pending.
The F grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published WGS 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