Med researcher r1 guide
🔬 A curated collection of 23,000+ agent skills for empirical research across 8 social science disciplines. | 精选 23,000+ AI Agent 技能库,覆盖8大社会科学学科的实证研究。CoPaper.AI 20分钟完成一篇可复现的规范实证论文,并支持用户上传 Skills。-- Maintained by CoPaper.AI from Stanford REAP.
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills --skill med-researcher-r1-guideAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Medical deep research agent with reasoning chain analysis
SKILL.md
4.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
MedResearcher-R1 Guide
Overview
MedResearcher-R1 is a medical deep research agent that combines clinical reasoning chains with iterative literature search to answer complex medical questions. Unlike general research agents, it is specialized for medical evidence — understanding clinical trial designs, PICO frameworks, evidence hierarchies, and medical terminology. Uses reasoning chain analysis (R1) to decompose clinical questions and systematically gather evidence.
Architecture
Clinical Question
↓
R1 Reasoning Chain (decompose into sub-questions)
↓
Medical Search Agent
├── PubMed (MeSH terms)
├── ClinicalTrials.gov
├── Cochrane Library
└── WHO ICTRP
↓
Evidence Extraction Agent
├── PICO extraction
├── Study design classification
├── Outcome extraction
└── Risk of bias assessment
↓
Synthesis Agent (evidence grading)
↓
Clinical Answer + Evidence Report
Usage
from med_researcher_r1 import MedResearcherR1
researcher = MedResearcherR1(
llm_provider="anthropic",
search_backends=["pubmed", "clinical_trials", "cochrane"],
)
# Complex clinical question
result = researcher.research(
question="In patients with treatment-resistant depression, "
"how does psilocybin-assisted therapy compare to "
"esketamine in terms of remission rates and "
"long-term outcomes?",
evidence_level="systematic", # systematic, rapid, scoping
max_papers=50,
)
print(result.summary)
print(f"\nEvidence quality: {result.evidence_grade}")
print(f"Papers analyzed: {len(result.papers)}")
Reasoning Chain
# Inspect the R1 reasoning chain
for step in result.reasoning_chain:
print(f"\nStep {step.number}: {step.type}")
print(f" Question: {step.question}")
print(f" Strategy: {step.search_strategy}")
print(f" Findings: {step.key_finding}")
print(f" Next: {step.next_action}")
# Example chain:
# Step 1: DECOMPOSE — Split into psilocybin efficacy,
# esketamine efficacy, head-to-head comparisons
# Step 2: SEARCH — PubMed: psilocybin depression RCT
# Step 3: EXTRACT — 3 RCTs found, extract PICO + outcomes
# Step 4: SEARCH — PubMed: esketamine depression outcomes
# Step 5: SYNTHESIZE — Compare evidence, note no direct
# head-to-head trials exist
# Step 6: CONCLUDE — Indirect comparison with caveats
Evidence Grading
# GRADE methodology for evidence quality
for paper in result.papers[:5]:
print(f"\n{paper.title} ({paper.year})")
print(f" Design: {paper.study_design}")
print(f" Sample: {paper.sample_size}")
print(f" Grade: {paper.evidence_grade}")
print(f" Risk of bias: {paper.risk_of_bias}")
# Aggregate evidence
print(f"\nOverall certainty: {result.certainty}")
# HIGH / MODERATE / LOW / VERY LOW
print(f"Recommendation: {result.recommendation}")
Medical Search Configuration
researcher = MedResearcherR1(
search_config={
"pubmed": {
"use_mesh": True,
"date_range": "2019/01/01:2025/12/31",
"article_types": [
"Randomized Controlled Trial",
"Meta-Analysis",
"Systematic Review",
],
},
"clinical_trials": {
"status": ["Completed", "Active, not recruiting"],
"phase": ["Phase 3", "Phase 4"],
},
},
reasoning_config={
"max_chain_length": 10,
"reflection_enabled": True,
"uncertainty_explicit": True,
},
)
Clinical Use Cases
- Clinical queries: Evidence-based answers to medical questions
- Drug comparison: Indirect comparison when no head-to-head data
- Guideline review: Check evidence supporting clinical guidelines
- Case analysis: Literature context for unusual presentations
- Grant proposals: Evidence landscape for research funding