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
72/100 · 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=72/100) with measured duplication (49.46%) severely penalized (scored zero) and moderate Q30 (82.8%, scored 64/100). Extrapolated high target coverage (194.5×) rescues the score numerically, but duplication inflates PCR-artifact noise—evidence_strength=0.61 warrants a measured re-pass before confidently calling structural 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