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
31/100 · FStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
miRNA-Seq (mouse), score F=31/100. Critical failure on two fronts: Q30 collapsed to 63.4% (scored 0) and mean quality to 27.5 (scored 0), indicating severe quality degradation. This catastrophic quality loss—worse than any peer in the dataset—likely reflects instrument malfunction or sample failure; do not 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.