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
83/100 · BStandardized, 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 the Illumina HiSeq 2000, scoring 83/100 (grade B), meaning it is broadly reusable but with one notable caveat. The grade is held up by excellent base-call quality — 92% of bases at Q30 and a mean base quality of 34.7, with adapters fully trimmed (0% adapter content) — so per-base accuracy and read cleanliness are not concerns for downstream miRNA quantification. The one metric dragging the score down is the 87.9% duplication rate, which scored 0; in general RNA-seq that flags a library-complexity problem, though in miRNA-Seq high duplication is partly expected because mature miRNAs are short, few, and highly abundant, so judge it against small-RNA norms rather than treating it as outright failure. All the quality metrics here are directly measured (the duplication, Q30, adapter, and base-quality figures are real, not extrapolated), so this reading is firm rather than provisional — the main thing to confirm before reuse is whether the duplication reflects true biological abundance or PCR over-amplification.
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.
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.