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

SRX3223595

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

86/100 · B

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

What this means
claude:haiku

Chicken bulk RNA-seq. Grade B with full measured evidence. The duplication rate (67.49%) is elevated, scoring only 17/100; this is a significant constraint for reuse, as it reduces effective read depth and can inflate variance in gene expression estimates, particularly for moderate-abundance transcripts.

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 6050507414 reported
total reads 29953007 reported
n content pct 0.012 measured
pct q20 bases 98.2 measured
pct q30 bases 93.9 measured
gc content pct 52.2 measured
mean read length 101 measured
mean base quality 36 measured
adapter content pct 0.05 measured
duplication rate pct 67.49 measured
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 86/100

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 93.9 measured ×1 100%
mean base quality 36 measured ×0.6 100%
adapter content pct 0.05 measured ×0.4 100%
duplication rate pct 67.49 measured ×0.4 17%
QC cost 20 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