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
This is a bulk human RNA-seq run from an older Illumina Genome Analyzer IIx, and it earns a solid B (83/100) backed by full measured evidence (evidence_strength=1), so the reading is firm rather than provisional. The grade was held back almost entirely by mean_base_quality, which sits at Phred ~30 and scored only 33/100 under the heaviest weight — a Q30 average is actually respectable for this instrument generation, but it leaves less quality headroom than modern platforms, so expect somewhat reduced confidence in low-frequency variant or allele-specific calls. On the positive side, duplication is moderate at 31.8% (scored 96/100, typical and acceptable for RNA-seq library complexity) and adapter content is effectively zero, meaning reads are clean and need little trimming before alignment. Overall this is trustworthy, reusable expression data with no measured red flags; just treat the base-quality ceiling as the main limit if you intend to push it toward sensitive variant-level analysis.
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.