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

SRR19851129

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

33/100 · F

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

What this means
claude:haiku

Wastewater metagenome amplicon profiling using long-read MinION (Oxford Nanopore) generated 113k reads averaging 338.9 bp, enabling full-length 16S or ITS recovery for precise taxonomic identification. However, the moderate 44% Q20 and low 10.1% Q30 reflect Nanopore basecall characteristics; pre-filtering and consensus calling recommended to mitigate high error rates, though long-reads outweigh substitution errors for species-level classification.

Data type / assay
amplicon
Organism
wastewater metagenome
Instrument
MinION
Platform
OXFORD_NANOPORE
N numbers (samples, groups)
1 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 38426089 reported
total reads 113386 reported
n content pct 0.023 measured
pct q20 bases 44 measured
pct q30 bases 10.1 measured
gc content pct 44.3 measured
mean read length 338.9 measured
mean base quality 18.9 measured
adapter content pct 0 measured
duplication rate pct 35.14 measured
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 2 scored metric(s) → 33/100

The F grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published amplicon thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.

pct q30 bases 10.1 measured ×1 0%
adapter content pct 0 measured ×0.5 100%
QC cost 13 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 75