「evidence」の検索結果

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

Use this bioinformatics data analysis skill to construct a database-driven lncRNA-mRNA regulatory network from target lncRNA and/or gene lists by projecting shared miRNA evidence from local ceRNA reference tables. It does not infer networks from expression matrices.

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。

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。

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。

Improves medical English precision without changing the underlying facts, evidence boundaries, or intended scientific meaning.

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 Introduction section of a biomedical manuscript based on an approved or sufficiently clear study logic, while preserving evidence boundaries and introduction discipline.

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 comprehensive auditor for any agent skill — including Manus, OpenClaw/ClawHub, Claude, LobeHub, or custom SKILL.md-based skills. Use this skill whenever a user wants to evaluate, audit, review, score, or quality-check an agent skill before publishing, updating, or deploying. Covers two hard veto gates (structural redlines + research integrity redlines), static quality scoring across 25 criteria (ISO 25010 + OpenSSF + Agent), dynamic test input generation, multi-mode execution testing, multi-layer output evaluation with five specialized category rubrics (Evidence Insight / Protocol Design / Data Analysis / Academic Writing / Other), a Research Veto that applies to all four research categories, human eval viewer generation, actionable P0/P1/P2 optimization recommendations, and automatic skill improvement that outputs a polished, production-ready SKILL.md. Also use whenever a user says "audit my skill", "evaluate my skill", "improve my skill", or wants a corrected version after evaluation.

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 your study to appropriate journals based on topic, design, and evidence strength. Use when deciding where to submit a manuscript, comparing journal options by impact factor vs scope fit vs method tolerance, or finding a realistic submission target after a rejection. Also triggers on "where should I submit this paper", "which journal is best for my study", "find journals for my manuscript", "is this a good fit for [journal]", or "I need a journal with IF around X".

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。

Calibrates manuscript claim strength so wording matches the actual evidence level, study design, and validation status.

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。

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。

Use when profiling CPU/memory hot paths, generating flame graphs, or capturing JFR/perf evidence.

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 generating performance hypotheses backed by git history and code evidence.

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 synthesizing perf findings into evidence-backed recommendations and decisions.

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 appending structured perf investigation notes and evidence.

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。

Classify XQUIC GitHub issues with an evidence-backed L1-L4 resolution-complexity label while keeping validity, priority, severity, and disposition separate and skipping uniquely labeled issues unless the user explicitly forces a recheck. Use when triaging one issue or a batch of issues, creating an issue-complexity backlog, or applying or correcting L1-L4 GitHub labels.

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 evaluating David Einhorn-style forensic shorts and longs: accounting red flags, governance problems, capital allocation failures, and evidence-based short theses.

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 evaluating Muddy Waters-style forensic short research: fraud, channel checks, related-party structures, cash verification, governance failure, and evidence-based short theses.

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。