「biomedical」の検索結果

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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.

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。

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。

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。

Academic paper reading and research development system for biomedical researchers. Finds papers via Semantic Scholar, reads with structured notes, tracks discussion insights, and synthesizes literature into a Research Foundation Document (RFD) for downstream protocol design skills. 8 commands: /setup /feed /read /discuss /recap /update /sync /propose

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。

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。

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。

Clarifies a vague clinical or biomedical research idea into a structured, bounded, searchable, researchable, and testable question. Always use this skill whenever a user has an early-stage clinical or research thought, an over-broad topic, an ill-defined evidence question, or an unclear problem statement that must be translated into a question framing suitable for literature retrieval, evidence synthesis, gap analysis, study design, or downstream protocol planning. Never jump straight to answering the substantive medical question unless the user explicitly asks for that. Focus first on question framing, boundary setting, and downstream-ready formulation.

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。

Turns your protocol and analysis workflow into publication-ready Methods text. Use when writing or revising the Methods section of a biomedical manuscript, ensuring it complies with reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, TRIPOD), matches what is in the Results section, and satisfies journal-specific word limits and declarations. Also triggers on "write my methods", "revise my methods section", "how to report my statistics", "what do I need to include in methods for [study type]", or "make my methods CONSORT-compliant".

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。

Writes the full Results section of a biomedical manuscript from a sufficiently clear result structure, figure inventory, or analysis summary while preserving evidence boundaries and result hierarchy.

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 biomedical table content into clear manuscript or presentation narrative by prioritizing meaningful patterns, contrasts, and interpretation boundaries rather than restating every number.

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。

Optimizes manuscript titles and abstracts for information density, factual accuracy, and submission fit in biomedical research writing.

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 biomedical figures, analyses, and result blocks into a clear Results section structure with disciplined narrative ordering and evidence-aware presentation.

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 biomedical manuscripts against reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, and TRIPOD to identify missing or weak reporting elements before submission or revision.

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 consistency across title, abstract, methods, results, figures, tables, and supplements to identify internal contradictions and version drift in biomedical manuscripts.

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。

Composes a Discussion around key findings, mechanisms, clinical relevance, and limitations. Use when writing or improving a Discussion section for any biomedical manuscript — including interpreting results, connecting to prior literature, addressing unexpected findings, framing limitations, and writing the conclusion. Also triggers on "write my discussion", "help me discuss my findings", "how do I compare to prior studies", "write the limitations paragraph", or "draft a discussion for my paper".

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 a biomedical study storyline into a graphical abstract and, when direct image capability is available, generates the graphical abstract directly; otherwise it falls back to prompts, Mermaid flowcharts, or designer-facing briefs.

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 background-gap-objective logic for biomedical manuscript introductions with clear study positioning and disciplined narrative structure.

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。