Corpus 1,272 assessed · 1,173 scored · 643 reproduced ≥75 · 168 flagged ·∅ 74.1/100
← Dataset search

SRR6189088

SRA

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.

Reused by

1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.

Deep data QC

56/100 · F

Standardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured

What this means
claude:haiku

Chicken WGS with catastrophic adapter contamination (48.31%, the disqualifying metric) and marginal extrapolated coverage (19.3×). Adapter-contaminated reads corrupt variant calling; not reusable. Evidence is provisional pending measured-depth verification.

Data type / assay
WGS
Organism
Gallus gallus
Instrument
Illumina HiSeq 2000
Platform
ILLUMINA
N numbers (samples, groups)
1 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 21232793373 reported
total reads 77419929 reported
mean coverage 19.3 extrapolated
n content pct 0 measured
pct q20 bases 92.9 measured
pct q30 bases 82.7 measured
gc content pct 41.5 measured
mean read length 138.4 measured
mean base quality 33.4 measured
adapter content pct 48.31 measured
duplication rate pct 0.66 measured
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 56/100

The F grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published WGS thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.

mean coverage 19.3 extrapolated ×1.2 51%
pct q30 bases 82.7 measured ×1 64%
duplication rate pct 0.66 measured ×0.5 100%
adapter content pct 48.31 measured ×0.4 0%
QC cost 26 s compute

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.

1 studies use it 1 reproduced mean score 91