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

SRX3223590

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

94/100 · A

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

What this means
claude:haiku

Chicken bulk RNA-seq. Grade A with full measured evidence. Duplication (46.71%, scoring 63/100) is the constraining factor but remains manageable; otherwise excellent Q30 bases (95.3%) and base quality (36.6) make this suitable for reuse with standard duplicate-handling approaches.

Data type / assay
bulk-RNA-seq
Organism
Gallus gallus
Instrument
Illumina HiSeq 2500
Platform
ILLUMINA
N numbers (samples, groups)
1 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 6451139064 reported
total reads 31936332 reported
n content pct 0.002 measured
pct q20 bases 98.6 measured
pct q30 bases 95.3 measured
gc content pct 50.2 measured
mean read length 101 measured
mean base quality 36.6 measured
adapter content pct 0 measured
duplication rate pct 46.71 measured
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 94/100

The A 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 95.3 measured ×1 100%
mean base quality 36.6 measured ×0.6 100%
adapter content pct 0 measured ×0.4 100%
duplication rate pct 46.71 measured ×0.4 63%
QC cost 19 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