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
73/100 · CStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Short-read WES (human, HiSeq 2500); grade-C (score=73/100) compromised by measured high duplication (43.18%, scored 6/100) and moderate Q30 (82.9%, scored 64/100). Extrapolated high target coverage (218.9×) partially recovers the score, but duplication inflates copy-number uncertainty and evidence_strength=0.61 flags provisional coverage—re-validate measured depth before calling variants.
The C grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published WES 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