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
75/100 · CStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
RNA-Seq from older Genome Analyzer IIx platform, grade C. Dual degradation drives the lower score: duplication at 95.62% (scored 0/100) and reduced mean base quality at 32 (scored 67 vs. 100 for B-grade peers). Older instrumentation combined with extreme duplication and lower quality makes this marginal; seek alternatives where available.
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.