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
43/100 · FStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
miRNA-Seq (mouse), score F=43/100. Multiple quality failures: Q30 at 76.1% (scored 30), mean quality at 30.5 (scored 42), and duplication at 65.33% (scored 22) all contribute. Pervasive quality deficit across key metrics indicates technical or biological issues; unsuitable for reuse.
The F 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.