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
84/100 · BStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
This is bulk human RNA-seq from an older Illumina Genome Analyzer IIx run, and it earns a solid B (84/100): base quality is the standout strength, with 93% of bases at Q30, a mean base quality of 35.4, and zero detectable adapter contamination, meaning reads are clean and trimming is essentially unnecessary. The one metric dragging the grade down is the 73.4% duplication rate, which scored just 4/100 and is the single most important caveat for reuse — although high duplication is partly expected in RNA-seq from highly expressed transcripts, a level this elevated points to limited library complexity that can bias expression quantification and inflate apparent coverage, so it warrants checking after deduplication before trusting low-abundance signal. The short 37 bp single-end reads also limit splice-junction and isoform-level resolution, making this dataset better suited to gene-level expression than to transcript assembly or allele-specific analysis. Note that evidence_strength is 1, but the headline counts (total reads and bases) are reported rather than measured, so those size figures should be treated as provisional pending a deeper measured pass, even though the core quality metrics here were directly measured.
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.