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
76/100 · CStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Bulk small-RNA (miRNA-Seq) data from mouse on an Illumina HiSeq 2500, scored 76/100 (grade C). The grade is dragged down almost entirely by an 86.47% duplication rate, which scores 0 and is the dominant negative driver — though for miRNA-Seq this is partly expected, since the small, finite repertoire of mature miRNAs and short ~51 bp reads inflate apparent PCR/optical duplication, so it should not be read as harshly as it would for a standard mRNA library. Working in the data's favor are excellent base quality (mean Q34.9, ~86.6% of bases ≥Q30) and zero adapter contamination, both scoring full marks and indicating clean, reliably basecalled reads suitable for accurate miRNA alignment and quantification. Note that evidence_strength is 1, meaning all scored metrics were directly measured rather than extrapolated, so this reading is firm rather than provisional — overall the dataset is reusable for miRNA expression analysis provided you treat the high duplication as assay-intrinsic and apply UMI- or count-based normalization rather than naive dedup.
The C 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.