AIPOCH

Use when performing sample-level dimensionality reduction and visualization on abundance or OTU-style matrices with a companion group file, generating UMAP and/or t-SNE coordinates and plots for group separation assessment. NOT for: differential expression testing, single-cell workflows requiring dedicated embeddings pipelines, or analyses without a sample grouping file.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when running prognostic survival analysis on a clinical cohort with time-to-event data to estimate univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, export result tables, and generate forest plots. NOT for: nomogram construction, calibration curves, time-dependent ROC analysis, or model training/feature selection beyond the built-in univariate screening rule.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when building XGBoost models on tabular data and returning feature importance ranking outputs. Supports binary classification and regression with automatic task detection, train-test split, performance tables, feature importance ranking tables, and PNG importance plots.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Finds translational opportunities that connect basic-research discoveries to clinically meaningful use cases such as diagnosis, stratification, prognosis, treatment response prediction, monitoring, or therapeutic development. Use this skill when a user wants to turn a mechanism finding, pathway signal, cellular phenotype, experimental observation, or omics discovery into a stronger translational research direction. Always separate mechanistic relevance from translational usability, and never present a basic finding as clinically actionable unless the evidence supports that level.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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".

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Verifies whether a scientific or biomedical claim is actually supported by the cited original papers rather than by citation drift, overstatement, selective citation, or correlation-to-causation inflation. Use this skill whenever a user wants to check whether a repeated statement, slide claim, manuscript sentence, review assertion, or “people often say” scientific conclusion is truly supported by the underlying primary literature. Always separate the claim itself, the cited paper(s), what the paper actually showed, what it did not show, and whether later retellings drifted beyond the original evidence. Never fabricate references, findings, study features, or citation chains.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Tracks the latest preprints and emerging research topics related to your topic across bioRxiv, medRxiv, and arXiv. Use when a user wants to discover what is being published right now before it reaches journals, monitor competitor directions, spot new methodology trends, or get an early-warning scan of a research area. Triggers on phrases like "what's new in X", "latest preprints on Y", "emerging topics in Z", "monitor bioRxiv for", or "what are people working on in this field".

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.