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
72/100 · CStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
This is a bulk human RNA-seq run from an older Illumina Genome Analyzer IIx (short 35 bp reads), and it earns a middling grade C (72/100) that is well-supported rather than provisional, since every contributing metric here was actually measured (evidence_strength = 1). The grade is held down mainly by a mean base quality of 30, which—while not catastrophic—sits at the low end and caps confidence in per-base calls, and by a 59% duplication rate; for RNA-seq the latter is partly expected from highly expressed transcripts, but at this level it still erodes library complexity and effective depth for quantification. Working in its favor, the data are clean where it matters for reuse: Q30 base fraction is 100% and adapter content is 0%, so trimming and adapter contamination are non-issues. Net, this is reusable for expression-level analyses if you account for duplication and the short read length, but the modest base quality and high duplication make it a weaker choice for applications needing high sensitivity, such as RNA variant calling or low-abundance transcript detection.
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.