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

SRR1917324

ENA first seen 2018

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.

Reused by

1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.

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

miRNA-Seq (Illumina HiSeq 2000, Homo sapiens), grade B. Strong base quality metrics—pct_q30_bases=90.1 and mean_base_quality=35.3—support reliable miRNA identification and abundance estimation despite expected high duplication (90.9%). Evidence strength is low; provisional pending measured revalidation.

Data type / assay
bulk-RNA-seq
Organism
Homo sapiens
Instrument
Illumina HiSeq 2000
Platform
ILLUMINA
N numbers (samples, groups)
1 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 761450037 reported
total reads 31785155 reported
n content pct 0.026 measured
pct q20 bases 93.4 measured
pct q30 bases 90.1 measured
gc content pct 44.2 measured
mean read length 23.6 measured
mean base quality 35.3 measured
adapter content pct 0.06 measured
duplication rate pct 90.9 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 90.1 measured ×1 100%
mean base quality 35.3 measured ×0.6 100%
adapter content pct 0.06 measured ×0.4 100%
duplication rate pct 90.9 measured ×0.4 0%
QC cost 10 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 reproduced mean score 89