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
64/100 · DStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Short-read WGS from human (Homo sapiens) achieving only D-grade with 64/100 score and evidence_strength of 0.61 (below full confidence). Catastrophically low Q30 bases (23.3%, scored 0/100) is the primary failure metric; mean base quality of 27 and extrapolated coverage estimate confirm this is not a measured, high-confidence pass. A deep measured re-evaluation is essential before any reuse.
The D 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