scientific-skills/Data Analysis/meta-feasibility-analyzer/SKILL.md
Analyzes the feasibility of a proposed Meta-analysis topic by searching for existing Meta-analyses and Clinical Trials on PubMed/ClinicalTrials.gov. Use when you need to evaluate if a topic is viable for a new Meta-analysis.
npx skillsauth add aipoch/medical-research-skills meta-feasibility-analyzerInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
This skill evaluates the feasibility of conducting a new Meta-analysis on a given topic (title). It checks for existing Meta-analyses and available Clinical Trials to determine if there is a gap or sufficient new evidence.
scripts/feasibility_ops.py is the most direct path to complete the request.meta-feasibility-analyzer package behavior rather than a generic answer.scripts/feasibility_ops.py.Python: 3.10+. Repository baseline for current packaged skills.Third-party packages: not explicitly version-pinned in this skill package. Add pinned versions if this skill needs stricter environment control.cd "20260316/scientific-skills/Data Analytics/meta-feasibility-analyzer"
python -m py_compile scripts/feasibility_ops.py
python scripts/feasibility_ops.py --help
Example run plan:
CONFIG block or documented parameters if the script uses fixed settings.python scripts/feasibility_ops.py with the validated inputs.See ## Workflow above for related details.
scripts/feasibility_ops.py.Follow these steps to perform the analysis.
First, analyze the user's proposed title to generate a valid PubMed search query.
Prompt for LLM:
Role: Medical Search Expert
Task: Extract keywords from the following title and create a PubMed search query.
Title: "{{input_the_title}}"
Rules:
1. Extract keywords (Disease, Intervention, Outcome).
2. Convert to standard MeSH terms if possible.
3. Combine with AND/OR.
4. Enclose the final query in braces {}.
5. Do NOT include "meta analysis" in the query.
Example Output:
{(ovarian cancer) AND (chemotherapy) AND (bevacizumab)}
Run the extraction script to get the clean query string.
python scripts/feasibility_ops.py extract --text "{{llm_output}}"
Store the output as {{search_query}}.
Search for Clinical Trials via the PubMed API.
python scripts/feasibility_ops.py search --query "{{search_query}}" --type clinical
Store the result JSON as {{clinical_json}}.
Format the clinical trial results and check the count.
python scripts/feasibility_ops.py clinical --json '{{clinical_json}}' --query "{{search_query}}"
Parse the output JSON to get:
clinical_count: Number of trials found.clinical_summary: Formatted summary string.If clinical_count == 0:
If clinical_count > 0:
Search for existing Meta-analyses via the PubMed API using the same query.
python scripts/feasibility_ops.py search --query "{{search_query}}" --type meta
Store the result JSON as {{meta_json}}.
Format the meta-analysis results.
python scripts/feasibility_ops.py meta --json '{{meta_json}}'
Parse the output JSON to get:
meta_summary: Formatted summary string.Analyze the results to determine final feasibility.
Prompt for LLM:
Role: Clinical Research Expert
Task: Assess Meta-analysis feasibility.
Input:
Title: "{{input_the_title}}"
Existing Meta-Analyses:
{{meta_summary}}
Existing Clinical Trials:
{{clinical_summary}}
Logic:
1. If NO existing Meta-analyses + YES Clinical Trials -> ✅ FEASIBLE.
2. If YES existing Meta-analyses:
- Check the dates. Are there new Clinical Trials published AFTER the latest Meta-analysis?
- If YES new trials -> ✅ FEASIBLE (Update is possible).
- If NO new trials -> ⚠️ NOT FEASIBLE (Already covered).
Output Format:
"{{input_the_title}}"
[Conclusion: ✅ Feasible / ⚠️ Not Feasible]
Reason: [Explain based on the logic above]
Present the final analysis to the user.
tools
Generates complete conventional oncology bulk-transcriptome biomarker and hub-gene research designs from a user-provided cancer type and study direction. Always use this skill whenever a user wants to design, plan, or build a tumor bioinformatics study centered on differential expression, prognostic filtering or risk modeling, PPI-based hub-gene prioritization, diagnostic/prognostic evaluation, clinical association, immune infiltration context, methylation context, and optional tissue or cell validation. Covers five study patterns (signature-first prognostic workflow, hub-gene-first biomarker workflow, hybrid signature-to-hub workflow, immune-context biomarker workflow, translational validation workflow) and always outputs four workload configs (Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+) with recommended primary plan, step-by-step workflow, figure plan, validation strategy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path...
development
Generates complete conventional non-oncology bioinformatics research designs from a user-provided disease context, process-related gene family or biological theme, and validation direction. Use when a study centers on multi-dataset bulk transcriptome integration, DEG analysis, process-gene intersection, enrichment analysis, GSEA, PPI hub-gene prioritization, TF/miRNA regulatory networks, ROC-based biomarker evaluation, and immune infiltration analysis. Covers five study patterns (process-DEG discovery, enrichment/GSEA interpretation, hub-gene prioritization, regulatory-network and immune interpretation, multi-layer public validation) 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.
tools
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.
testing
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.