AIPOCH

Identifies translationally meaningful paths for bioinformatics findings by mapping omics or computational discoveries to diagnosis, stratification, prognosis, treatment-response, monitoring, or target-nomination use cases, while auditing bridge evidence, assayability, and validation burden. Use this skill when a user wants to know whether a bioinformatics finding can be framed as a stronger translational topic without overclaiming clinical relevance. Always separate statistical signal from translational value, and never imply clinical utility, targetability, or validation depth without explicit evidence support.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Scans the biomarker landscape of a disease area by biomarker type, clinical/research use case, evidence layer, validation status, and maturity level. Use this skill when a user wants a field-level biomarker evidence map rather than a generic literature summary. Always separate exploratory biomarkers from externally validated or clinically embedded biomarkers, and never imply clinical maturity without explicit evidence support.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Builds professional search strategies for PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and similar databases. Use when a user needs to construct a MeSH-based Boolean query, design a systematic review search, expand a concept with synonyms, apply study-type or date filters, or adapt a query across multiple databases. Also triggers when the user says "help me search for papers on X", "build a search strategy", "what are the MeSH terms for", or "I need a systematic review search string".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Explains why studies on the same biomedical topic reach different or opposing conclusions by auditing differences in population, endpoint definition, sample source, assay or platform, study design, statistical model, adjustment strategy, validation chain, and bias control. It separates true contradiction from apparent contradiction caused by framing or methods. Never fabricate references, PMIDs, DOIs, trial identifiers, dataset details, platform details, study features, or conflict explanations that are not supported by the input.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Organizes the evidence and competitive landscape around a drug, target, or pathway by separating disease relevance, tractability, preclinical evidence, clinical evidence, modality fit, and crowding. Always map what is biologically supported, what is druggable, what has actually advanced, and what remains strategically open. Never confuse target relevance with druggability, preclinical activity with clinical promise, or narrative excitement with validated development maturity. Never fabricate references, trial status, approval status, company activity, or asset metadata.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Ranks papers by evidence family, methodological quality tier, validation depth, and claim discipline; assigns anchor, context-setting, mechanistic support, or caution citation roles; prevents prestige-based or design-label-based ranking errors.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reads a paper figure by figure before re-integrating the full narrative, so the user can identify the core findings quickly and check whether each visual actually supports the authors' main claims. Always separate figure content, figure-linked claim, evidentiary strength, and unsupported interpretation. Never fabricate references, PMIDs, DOIs, figure content, panel labels, result values, or study details that were not actually provided.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Quickly judges whether a biomedical paper is worth deep reading by screening for question fit, design quality, sample adequacy, methodological novelty, and reproducibility value.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Identifies real, evidence-audited, topic-specific research gaps in medical research by first retrieving and verifying literature from trusted sources, then mapping the current evidence landscape, rejecting pseudo-gaps, and converting only medium/high-confidence gaps into study-ready research opportunities. Always require real literature retrieval before formal gap claims. Never fabricate references, metadata, or findings.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

A medical-research-native literature reading skill for users with clinical, bioinformatics, translational, and basic experimental backgrounds. Use this skill whenever a user wants to read, analyze, critique, or interpret a medical or scientific paper — whether they provide a PDF, abstract, DOI, PMID, or just a title. Triggers include requests like \"analyze this paper\", \"critique this study\", \"is this a strong paper?\", \"give me similar studies\", \"prepare me for journal club\", \"help me understand this bioinformatics paper\", \"what are the weaknesses here?\", or \"turn this into a mind map\". Also activate for any downstream deliverables such as journal club kits, comparison tables, PI decision briefs, replication starters, or follow-up experiment designs. Do NOT treat as a generic summarizer — this skill performs structured evidence-type classification, track-specific critical appraisal, interpretation-boundary judgment, and research-grade follow-up generation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Maps whether a biomedical research topic, subtopic, or study angle is truly saturated, superficially crowded, strategically occupied, or still open for differentiated entry. Use this skill when a user wants to know whether a hot medical research direction is already overworked, whether meaningful whitespace remains, whether major groups have already occupied the obvious claims, and whether the timing window is still open. Always distinguish popularity from true saturation, and distinguish cosmetic novelty from meaningful differentiating entry.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Detects methodological gaps across study design, analysis, validation, bias control, reproducibility, and implementation readiness within a biomedical research area. Use this skill when a user wants to identify what current studies are still methodologically missing, which weaknesses are most consequential, and what upgrade path would produce a stronger next-step study. Always separate design gaps, analysis gaps, validation gaps, and reproducibility gaps. Never treat technical complexity as methodological rigor.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reverse-engineers the methods section of a biomedical paper into a structured, reproducible workflow. Use this skill when a user wants to understand how a study was actually executed, extract data sources, inclusion/exclusion logic, preprocessing, analytical sequence, software/tools, validation path, and critical parameters, or build a replication checklist from a paper, abstract, DOI, PMID, title, screenshot, or partial methods text. Do not treat this as generic summarization. Focus on reconstructing the operational method pipeline, surfacing missing reproducibility details, and distinguishing explicitly reported steps from inferred or unresolved ones. Never fabricate references, methods details, identifiers, software versions, parameters, datasets, or validation steps.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Collects candidate biomedical literature across multiple databases, adapts search logic by database, preserves source metadata, and organizes results into a structured, screening-ready candidate pool. Always use this skill when a user wants cross-database literature collection, search strategy construction, candidate paper aggregation, or first-pass evidence organization before deduplication, screening, layered reading, or review planning. Requires real and verifiable literature records only. Every formal literature item must include a real link and DOI when available; never fabricate citations, titles, authors, years, journals, abstracts, PMIDs, or DOIs. If a DOI is unavailable or cannot be verified, state that explicitly rather than inventing one.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Assesses whether a medical research topic is worth starting now by separating true novelty from pseudo-novelty, auditing real feasibility under stated resource constraints, and forcing a concrete start / narrow / redesign / stop decision. Always require explicit assumptions and never fabricate references, datasets, resource availability, precedent studies, or publication claims.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Detects overlooked, underrepresented, weakly resolved, or poorly validated populations and subgroups within a biomedical research area so users can identify more precise and meaningful study populations. Always use this skill when the real question is not just what is under-studied, but which populations, strata, or subgroups are missing, thinly represented, superficially analyzed, pooled without resolution, or insufficiently validated in the current evidence base. Focus on meaningful subgroup gaps rather than generic calls for diversity.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Assesses whether study results are trustworthy by auditing design integrity, sample structure, statistical handling, bias control, validation chain, and claim discipline. It identifies where results are robust, fragile, overfit, under-validated, or overclaimed. Always separate reported findings from reliability judgment. Never fabricate references, PMIDs, DOIs, trial identifiers, study features, or validation claims.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Identifies the real underlying study design used in a medical or biomedical paper, distinguishes primary and secondary design components when papers are hybrid, and converts the paper into an evidence-aware design label suitable for literature appraisal, evidence grading, and downstream review workflows. Always identify the actual design from what the study did, not from how the authors describe it. Never fabricate references, metadata, or study features.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Rapidly maps the evidence landscape around a medical topic by organizing major research streams, target populations, endpoints, methods, evidence density, and thin areas. Use this skill BEFORE medical-research-gap-finder — it provides the structured landscape that makes formal gap analysis more rigorous. Do not use for formal gap identification, study design, or protocol planning directly.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evidence-based medical knowledge and research mentor grounded in the Bian Que tradition. Covers clinical reasoning, diagnostic thinking (望闻问切), pharmacology, pathology, differential diagnosis, medical literature appraisal, and the philosophy of early intervention. Trigger whenever users ask about medicine, clinical science, drugs, disease mechanisms, diagnosis, lab interpretation, treatment comparison, or health sciences. Even without explicit research framing, trigger on any topic touching disease, therapeutics, or clinical decision-making. Part of the AIPOCH Medical Research Skill Hub.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Gregor Mendel — genetics mentor, patient experimenter, and gardener-monk. Trigger this skill when users ask about genetics, heredity, inheritance patterns, Mendelian laws, dominant/recessive traits, gene segregation, independent assortment, Punnett squares, classical genetics, or evolution-genetics connections. Also trigger when discussing the philosophy of science, how great ideas get ignored, the relationship between faith and science, or the virtue of patient long-term observation. Even if the user doesn't say "Mendel" explicitly, trigger this skill for questions touching genetics, breeding, trait inheritance, or genomics history. Part of the AIPOCH Science Mentor Skill Hub.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generates complete FAERS pharmacovigilance study designs for multi-drug or class-level safety comparison inside one predefined SOC or AE family using active comparators, disproportionality analysis, subgroup characterization, and reviewer-facing evidence control.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Designs primary aims, secondary aims, and testable hypotheses from broad biomedical research ideas. Use this skill when a user needs to convert a loose study idea into a tighter protocol-framing structure with clear aim hierarchy, hypothesis discipline, and separation between hypothesis-driven and exploratory components. Always keep aims answerable, non-overlapping, and aligned to the intended evidence type and study scope.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Designs cell-based and animal-based validation plans that translate computational, omics, biomarker, genetic, or clinical findings into experimentally testable validation routes. Always use this skill whenever a user wants to move from an in silico, statistical, or clinical association finding toward wet-lab validation using cell systems, organoid-like systems, xenograft or genetically relevant animal models. It should define the exact claim to test, separate mechanism-testing from association-support and translational-support goals, choose the best-fit model family, specify perturbation strategy, readouts, controls, sequencing of experiments, and four workload configurations (Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+) with one recommended primary plan. Never fabricate model availability, reagent availability, species relevance, assay feasibility, phenotype penetrance, expected effect sizes, validation success, or literature references.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。