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
57/100 · FStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
miRNA-Seq (mouse), score F=57/100. Multiple suboptimal metrics: Q30 at 81.1% (scored 56), duplication at 72.49% (scored 6), and mean quality 32. Better than SRR5832818 and SRR5832837 but still insufficient for high-confidence work; extensive filtering and validation would be required.
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.