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
Bulk RNA-seq from human cells on the older Illumina Genome Analyzer IIx, this dataset earns a middling C (75/100) on fully measured QC metrics, so the reading is reliable rather than provisional. Base quality is genuinely strong — 90.8% of bases at Q30 and a mean base quality of 32.1, with effectively zero adapter and N content — meaning the underlying reads are clean and trustworthy for alignment. The grade is dragged down almost entirely by a 94.08% duplication rate, which scored 0 and is the dominant concern: such extreme duplication points to limited library complexity (likely heavy PCR amplification from low input), so the effective number of independent molecules is far smaller than the 25M reads suggest, which inflates expression estimates and weakens quantification. Practically, this data is reusable for qualitative or exploratory RNA-seq work but should be treated cautiously for differential-expression or low-abundance transcript analysis, and the very short 37 bp reads further limit multi-mapping and isoform resolution.
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.