「always」の検索結果

Generates complete conventional single-gene oncology research designs from a user-provided cancer context, target gene, and validation direction. Use when a study centers on a fixed candidate gene and needs expression, prognosis, clinicopathologic association, functional interpretation, immune context, genomic or epigenetic context, optional drug-response hypotheses, and orthogonal validation. Covers five study patterns and always outputs Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+ with a recommended primary plan, stepwise workflow, figure plan, validation hierarchy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path, and strictly verified literature retrieval.

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 clear, executable, and auditable inclusion and exclusion criteria for biomedical and clinical research protocols. Always use this skill when a user needs to translate a target population into operational screening rules tied to chart fields, time windows, tests, procedures, prior therapies, exclusions, and reviewable edge cases. Focus on protocol-stage precision, ambiguity reduction, auditability, and screening reproducibility rather than generic study design advice.

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。

Refines broad, vague, or aspirational biomedical research objectives into clear, bounded, measurable, executable, and downstream-ready study objective statements. Always use this skill when a user has a general aim such as “explore a mechanism,” “study prognosis,” “investigate biomarkers,” or “look at treatment response,” but the objective is still too broad, non-operational, or too ambiguous to support protocol framing, design selection, analysis planning, or hypothesis design. Never assume that polished wording alone means the objective is actionable. Focus first on objective type, missing operational elements, scope discipline, 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。

Designs a realistic, execution-aware biomedical study version under explicit constraints of samples, time, budget, data access, lab capacity, team skill, and validation resources. Always use this skill when the user has a real study idea, a candidate route, or a partially framed project but cannot assume ideal conditions. If critical feasibility inputs are missing, first clarify what resources are currently available, what resources may be obtainable, and what resources are realistically unavailable. Do not invent access, capabilities, collaborations, or validation resources. Focus first on feasibility-constrained study framing, route narrowing, dependency control, and minimum viable study design.

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 comparative network-toxicology research designs from a user-provided exposure pair, shared toxic phenotype, and validation direction. Use when a study centers on two related exposures under one outcome and needs target collection, shared-vs-specific target decomposition, enrichment, PPI hub prioritization, docking, optional transcriptomic cross-checks, and conservative mechanistic synthesis. Covers five study patterns and always outputs Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+ with a recommended primary plan, stepwise workflow, figure plan, validation hierarchy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path, and strictly verified literature retrieval.

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 single-compound network-toxicology research designs from one exposure, one disease or toxic phenotype, and a validation direction. Use when a study centers on one compound–one disease link and needs target collection, overlap construction, enrichment, PPI hub prioritization, docking, optional transcriptomic cross-check, and conservative mechanistic synthesis. Covers five study patterns and always outputs Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+ with a recommended primary plan, stepwise workflow, figure plan, validation hierarchy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path, and strictly verified literature retrieval.

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 discovery, modeling, and validation workflows for prognostic biomarkers in biomedical and clinical research. Always use this skill when the user needs a prognostic biomarker study blueprint rather than a diagnostic test protocol, predictive biomarker design, treatment recommendation, or a completed manuscript. Focus on endpoint family, follow-up horizon, time scale, candidate marker strategy, model-building logic, risk stratification framework, and internal/external validation requirements. Do not invent cohort size, event rate, assay readiness, literature support, or validation access.

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 studies for predicting treatment response or resistance in biomedical and clinical research. Always use this skill when the user needs a treatment-response or resistance prediction study blueprint rather than a prognostic biomarker protocol, diagnostic test design, causal treatment-effect estimation, or a completed manuscript. Focus on responder definition, treatment context, baseline comparability, feature integration strategy, model development logic, validation architecture, and interpretation boundaries. Do not invent response rates, cohort size, assay readiness, regimen uniformity, literature support, or validation access.

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。

Plans confounder control, variable adjustment logic, and bias mitigation strategies at the protocol stage for clinical, epidemiologic, translational, observational, and biomarker studies. Always use this skill when a user needs to identify major confounders, decide which variables should or should not be adjusted for, compare matching/stratification/weighting approaches, anticipate selection or measurement bias, or pressure-test a study design before execution. Focus on bias sensing, causal structure awareness, variable-role classification, and critical design review rather than generic statistical advice.

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。

Compares multiple study-route options for the same biomedical research question and recommends one primary plan, while explicitly explaining why alternative routes are secondary, premature, weaker, or dependency-heavy. Always use this skill when the user already has a reasonably defined question but is unsure which main study route should anchor the project. Focus on plan comparison, route selection, dependency awareness, and primary-plan justification rather than full protocol drafting.

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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.

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。