「claim」の検索結果

Generates complete FAERS-style pharmacovigilance disproportionality research designs from a user-provided drug class, comparator strategy, adverse-event domain, and patient-group stratification. Always use this skill whenever a user wants to design, plan, or build a spontaneous-report safety signal study using FAERS or a similar pharmacovigilance database, especially when the article logic includes product selection, indication-group stratification, MedDRA-based adverse-event extraction, serious-case filtering, suspect-drug and concomitant-exclusion logic, reporting odds ratio analysis, comparator-drug benchmarking, cross-drug comparison, and cautious signal interpretation without causal overclaiming. Covers five study patterns (single-drug disproportionality workflow, multi-drug class comparison workflow, indication-stratified workflow, comparator-controlled signal screening workflow...

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 complete research plans that integrate clinical variables with multi-omics data from a user-provided biomedical direction. Always use this skill whenever a user wants to design, scope, or structure a study that combines clinical variables with transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, epigenomics, or related omics layers for mechanism interpretation, biomarker development, risk stratification, treatment-response analysis, or translational use. It should define the clinical use case, alignment across data layers, feature-reduction and fusion logic, modeling route, mechanism-interpretation layer, validation ladder, and four workload configurations (Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+). Never fabricate datasets, accession numbers, sample counts, metadata completeness, platform coverage, literature references, PMIDs, DOIs, or validation status. Always include the mandatory Dataset Disclaimer immediately before any workflow section that mentions datasets or public resources.

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 a structured real-world evidence study using EHR, claims, or registry data, with explicit handling of time zero, eligibility windows, exposure definitions, outcome windows, censoring, confounding control, and target-trial-emulation logic. Use this skill when the user needs study-type design and protocol framing for an observational clinical study based on routine-care data. Do not invent database fields, follow-up completeness, linkage, coding validity, or causal identifiability.

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 complete single-cell research plans from a user-provided biomedical direction. Always use this skill whenever a user wants to design, scope, or structure a single-cell study — including disease-focused, mechanism-focused, biomarker-focused, translational, perturbation-inspired, or validation-aware projects. It should define the research question, choose the best-fit study pattern, recommend sample grouping logic, suggest reference datasets as examples only, specify the core analysis modules, propose a validation ladder, and output four workload configurations (Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+). Never fabricate datasets, sample metadata, accession numbers, cohort availability, cell-type labels, external validation resources, or literature references. Always include the mandatory Dataset Disclaimer immediately before any workflow section that mentions datasets or public resources.

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 QTL colocalization studies that connect eQTL, pQTL, sQTL, or related molecular QTL signals with GWAS loci. Always use this skill whenever a user wants to plan, scope, or structure a locus-level study asking whether a GWAS association and a molecular QTL association may reflect the same underlying causal signal. Covers locus definition, QTL/GWAS source architecture, ancestry and LD alignment, single-locus vs multi-locus strategy, candidate-gene prioritization, optional fine-mapping, linked MR/SMR follow-up, and functional annotation. Always output four workload configurations (Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+) with a recommended primary plan, stepwise workflow, method rationale, evidence hierarchy, figure plan, minimal executable version, and strictly verified literature guidance with no fabricated references. Never equate colocalization with causality proof, mediation proof, or automatic target validation. Always include the mandatory Dataset Disclaimer immediately before any workflow section that mentions datasets, repositories, consortia, or public resources.

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。

Matches a user’s biomedical research direction, disease problem, study aim, data modality, and resource constraints to the most relevant recent algorithms and method papers. Always search real recent algorithm literature first, prioritize the last 12 months, expand to 1–3 years only when needed, and add canonical baselines only when necessary. Every formal algorithm recommendation must include the verified primary method paper, plus published downstream papers that actually cite/use the algorithm when such papers are found, with DOI when available. Never fabricate papers, algorithm names, authors, journals, years, DOI, PMID, links, or benchmark claims. If no directly verified algorithm paper is found, say so explicitly.

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。

Converts an audited medical research gap into a complete, structured, gap-traceable study design. Always use this skill whenever a user already has one or more candidate research gaps and wants to transform them into an executable biomedical research plan rather than re-run broad topic ideation. Covers six gap-to-design patterns (evidence-completion, mechanism-resolution, cell-state/context-mapping, translation-bridge, causality-upgrade, population/stage-specific) and always outputs one recommended primary protocol, a gap-to-design dependency map, step-by-step workflow, figure plan, validation strategy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path, and verified design-support literature rules. Never fabricate references. Preserve claim-evidence discipline and do not replace a topic-specific gap with a generic workflow.

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 Mendelian randomization study designs from a user-provided exposure and outcome direction. Always use this skill whenever a user wants to design, plan, or build a Mendelian randomization study — even if phrased as "help me write a paper on X", "design an MR study for Y", or "I want to test whether A causally affects B using GWAS". Covers core two-sample MR design, optional bidirectional follow-up, optional multivariable MR, IV selection logic, ancestry alignment, harmonization, IVW as the default primary estimator, weighted median / MR-Egger / MR-PRESSO / leave-one-out sensitivity analyses, Steiger directionality, heterogeneity / pleiotropy checks, and explicit claim-boundary control. Always outputs four workload configs (Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+) with a recommended primary plan, stepwise workflow, method rationale, validation ladder, figure plan, minimal executable version, and strictly verified literature guidance with no fabricated 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。

Extracts concrete unmet clinical needs from guidelines, reviews, real-world studies, and clinical-practice evidence. Use this skill when a user wants to turn broad medical research value into specific clinical pain points such as weak early detection, poor risk stratification, treatment-response heterogeneity, monitoring gaps, diagnostic delay, undertreatment, overtreatment, or implementation failure. Always ground unmet-need claims in retrieved evidence and distinguish true care gaps from generic statements of importance.

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。

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。

Designs complete integrated research plans for bulk transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and related omics from a user-provided biomedical direction. Always use this skill whenever a user wants to design, scope, or structure a bulk multi-omics or single-omics-plus-clinical study — including disease-focused, mechanism-focused, biomarker-focused, stratification-oriented, or translational projects. It should define the research question, choose the best-fit study pattern, recommend example datasets as reference candidates only, specify the core analysis modules and method choices, propose a validation ladder, and output four workload configurations (Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+). Never fabricate datasets, accession numbers, sample counts, metadata completeness, cohort availability, assay coverage, literature references, PMIDs, DOIs, or validation status. Always include the mandatory Dataset Disclaimer immediately before any workflow section that mentions datasets or public resources.

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。

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。

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。

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。

Checks whether manuscript references are accurately matched to claims, appropriately scoped, and not overextended, misquoted, or second-hand cited.

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。

Verify whether a proposed XQUIC bug issue is real by checking the cited RFC or Internet-Draft mechanism against the repository's actual source behavior, tracing any root cause to current file and line evidence, and returning a fail-closed boolean gate. Use when validating an issue draft, investigating a claimed QUIC, HTTP/3, QPACK, or MoQT protocol violation, or before issue-submit may publish an issue.

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。

Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs. Evidence before assertions.

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 requirement enforcement ensuring all claims are backed by logs, test results, or exit codes. Zero = success, non-zero = failure. No guessing allowed.

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。

Spawn Comment Sicko, fix accepted findings, and offer encodings for claimed constraints.

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。

Use whenever you run statistical analysis for the social sciences (regression, hypothesis tests, econometrics) or read Stata (.dta) / SPSS (.sav) data in this workspace. Enforces an execute-don't-interpret boundary (surface estimates, don't volunteer causal claims), checks the analysis against a preregistration plan for HARKing, verifies reproducible seeds, and reproduces .dta/.sav estimates via R. Flags integrity risks; never certifies the analysis is sound.

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。

Use ONLY when the user asks to check, validate, review or audit analysis code for scientific correctness, or when you are the reviewer agent running its checks. Never run it unprompted as part of ordinary analysis work. Covers physics, earth/geo, biology, chemistry, social science and bioprocess/fermentation. Runs a deterministic domain-correctness gate that catches code which runs but is scientifically wrong (unit/dimension mismatch, Euclidean distance on lat/lon without a CRS, 0-based/1-based coordinate and strand errors, impossible SMILES valence, uncorrected multiple comparisons, averaging a categorical code, unconstrained kinetic-parameter fits, kLa computed from raw DO instead of the driving force, arithmetic mean of raw CFU counts, ANOVA/Tukey with no assumption check, a curvature DOE design fit with a first-order model, an ML model fit across process scales with no correction). Surfaces structured findings; never claims the code is correct.

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。

Draft privacy policies, terms of service, disclaimers, and legal notices. Creates GDPR-compliant texts, cookie policies, and data processing agreements. Use PROACTIVELY for legal documentation, compliance texts, or regulatory requirements.

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。