Corpus 1,273 assessed · 1,174 scored · 643 reproduced ≥75 · 169 flagged ·∅ 74.1/100
← Dataset search

SRR8618141

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

83/100 · B

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

What this means
claude:haiku

Long-read RNA-seq (Capra hircus, PacBio Sequel) with B-grade score (83/100). Paradoxical quality profile shows perfect Q30/Q20 (100%) yet mean base quality only 30 (scoring 33/100), suggesting bimodal quality distribution or Phred reporting mismatch. Exceptional read length (1857bp) enables isoform resolution, but the base quality inconsistency requires vendor validation before assembly work.

Data type / assay
bulk-RNA-seq
Organism
Capra hircus
Instrument
Sequel
Platform
PACBIO_SMRT
N numbers (samples, groups)
1 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 23287994088 reported
total reads 12446291 reported
n content pct 0 measured
pct q20 bases 100 measured
pct q30 bases 100 measured
gc content pct 47.9 measured
mean read length 1857 measured
mean base quality 30 measured
adapter content pct 0 measured
duplication rate pct 5.59 measured
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 83/100

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.

pct q30 bases 100 measured ×1 100%
mean base quality 30 measured ×0.6 33%
adapter content pct 0 measured ×0.4 100%
duplication rate pct 5.59 measured ×0.4 100%
QC cost 12 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 89