For the remaining 68 samples (assay done with <20 ng of RNA), two separate groups were considered: 41 samples with a computed RIN below 5.0, and 27 above 7.0. All samples in the first group were derived from RNA 6000 Nano assays, with mean RNA quantities loaded below 10 ng (Q1-Q3, 5-12 ng), i.e. below the lower limit of quantitation indicated by the manufacturer. All but 8 of these samples were estimated by our operators to be of poor quality (HC-level 4; N = 3) or degraded (HC-level 5; N = 30), and all but 4 were flagged Black by the degradometer software and no DegFact values were scored. These RNA profiles could not be interpreted reliably, possibly due to either the low RNA concentration or the unusual migration behavior and shifted baseline values of degraded samples. Thus, the two automated systems were in disagreement for these samples; while human interpretation was in most cases in agreement with the RIN system, with less than 20% of inconsistency. In the second group of 27 samples, 20 of the profiles were derived from RNA 6000 Pico assays with RNA quantities loaded being on average below 4 ng (Q1-Q3, 0.5-0.8 ng), which is within the manufacturer specifications. All but 3 of them were estimated by our operators to range from high (HC-level 1; N = 12) to correct (HC-level 2 and 3; N = 12) quality levels. In addition, all RNA profiles except 1 were scored by the degradometer software, most of them displaying an alert flag (N = 20); some slight degradation was detected, associated to a low mean DegFact value of 9.7 (IC 8.1-11.3; Q1-Q3, 6.2-12.6). Thus, both automated systems and human interpretations agreed in most of these cases, with <11% of inconsistency.