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 miRNA-Seq small-RNA library from mouse, sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq 1000, and on quality grounds it earns a solid B (83/100): base quality is excellent, with Q30 at 95.4%, a mean base quality of 36.8, and effectively no adapter or N contamination, so the underlying basecalls are trustworthy and the ~22 bp mean read length is exactly what you expect for mature miRNA inserts. The single factor pulling the grade down is the duplication rate of 96.92%, which scored 0 and is the main brake on the score — but note that for small-RNA/miRNA libraries extreme duplication is largely expected, since the true biological diversity of mature miRNAs is small and identical reads accumulate legitimately, so this should be interpreted as low complexity rather than a technical failure. Practically, the data are clean and reusable for miRNA expression quantification, though the very high duplication means you should rely on collapsing identical reads and treat any analysis requiring sequence complexity (e.g. novel-RNA discovery) with caution. One caveat on the rating itself: evidence_strength is reported as 1, and several headline fields (read/base counts, checksum) are reported rather than measured, so while the QC-critical quality and duplication metrics here are genuinely measured, treat the broader characterization as provisional pending a fuller measured pass.
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.