agentsclimarketplace

Cc statistics

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Cancer-Cell-Skills/skills/cc-statistics

Use when defining n, choosing statistical tests, correcting for multiple comparisons, and reporting error bars for a Cancer Cell (Cell Press) manuscript. Focuses on biological statistics and avoiding pseudo-replication; it does not design experiments or build figures.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill cc-statistics

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

SKILL.md

4.9 KB, ~1.1k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Biological Statistics (cc-statistics)

When to trigger

  • n is ambiguous, or you suspect pseudo-replication
  • Unsure which test fits the data and design
  • Many comparisons without multiplicity correction
  • Error bars / variability are unlabeled in figures or legends

Defining n (the core issue)

  • n = number of independent biological replicates (separate mice, independent cultures/passages, distinct patients).
  • Technical replicates (duplicate wells, repeat reads) describe measurement precision and do not count toward n.
  • State n for every panel in the legend, with what one unit is ("n = 5 mice per group", "n = 3 independent experiments").
  • Pooling cells from many wells of one experiment and calling it n=many is pseudo-replication — a classic Cancer Cell reviewer catch.

Choosing the test

DesignTypical test
Two groups, continuous, ~normalUnpaired t-test (Welch if unequal variance)
Two paired conditionsPaired t-test
Two groups, non-normal / small nMann-Whitney U
>2 groups, one factorOne-way ANOVA + post-hoc (Tukey/Dunnett)
Two factors (e.g., genotype × treatment)Two-way ANOVA + correction
Tumor growth over timeMixed-effects / repeated-measures ANOVA (not many t-tests per timepoint)
Survival / time-to-eventKaplan-Meier + log-rank; Cox for covariates
Categorical / proportionsFisher's exact / chi-square
CorrelationPearson (normal) / Spearman (ranked)
High-dimensional omicsModel-based (DESeq2/edgeR/limma) with FDR

Check assumptions (normality, equal variance) and report how. Prefer non-parametric or Welch corrections for small/uneven bench-scale data.

Multiple comparisons

  • Few planned comparisons → Tukey / Dunnett / Holm / Bonferroni.
  • Genome-wide / omics → control the false discovery rate (Benjamini-Hochberg); report adjusted p / q-values.
  • Do not run many pairwise t-tests across groups or timepoints without correction.

Error bars and reporting

  • Define what every error bar is: SD, SEM, or 95% CI — in the legend.
  • Show data points (dot plots / superplots) rather than bar-only charts when n is small.
  • Report exact p-values (not just asterisks) where feasible, plus the test and n.
  • Distinguish biological-replicate variability from technical noise in plots.
  • For survival, give hazard ratios with CIs, not p-value alone.

Checklist

  • n defined per panel as biological replicates; one unit specified
  • No pseudo-replication (technical reps not counted as n)
  • Test choice matches design; assumptions checked
  • Repeated/longitudinal data analyzed with appropriate model, not serial t-tests
  • Multiple comparisons corrected; FDR for omics
  • Error bars defined (SD/SEM/CI) in every legend
  • Exact p-values, test name, and n reported
  • Data points shown for small-n comparisons
  • Statistical software + versions stated (in STAR Methods)

Anti-patterns

  • "n=3" meaning three technical wells of one experiment
  • SEM used to make tiny error bars without saying so
  • Bar charts hiding 2–3 underlying points
  • Multiple t-tests across timepoints/groups, uncorrected
  • Asterisks with no test, no n, no exact p
  • Treating omics features as independent without FDR control

Statistics pass for Cancer Cell

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the cancer context, mechanism, model system, validation chain, and translational boundary; then test whether the manuscript addresses cancer-biology reviewers who expect mechanistic oncology, translational relevance, and strong multi-modal validation.

  • Primary move: Check estimand, denominator, uncertainty, multiplicity, missing data, sensitivity, and reporting standard before interpreting any result.
  • Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
  • Neighbor test: compare against Cell for broader biology, Nature Cancer for oncology breadth, Clinical Cancer Research for clinical translation; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
  • Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【n definition】biological unit = ...; per-panel n stated? Y/N
【Pseudo-replication risk】none / fix: [...]
【Tests】per analysis: ...
【Multiplicity】correction used: ...
【Error bars】SD/SEM/CI defined in legends? Y/N
【Reporting gaps】exact p / data points / software version
【Next step】cc-figures-tables

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.