Scar target evidence review

Scar Target Evidence Review

Description

Use this skill to turn a proposed scar or keloid target candidate into a conservative evidence review packet. It supports OriGene-style target discovery inside OpenScar by checking whether a gene, pathway, ligand-receptor pair, cell state, or mechanism has enough phenotype, omics, literature, and validation context to remain in a research nomination workflow.

This skill does not validate a therapeutic target, diagnose disease, prescribe treatment, determine recurrence, or claim that any target is a validated biomarker.

When to Use

• A candidate target from ScarAtlas, literature review, or clinician-scientist discussion needs structured evidence review.
• A ScarClaw target-discovery workflow needs an evidence table before ranking.
• A reviewer wants contradictions, missing evidence, and downgrade reasons made explicit.
• An OpenScar manuscript or internal research plan needs a target-candidate evidence appendix.

Do Not Use

• Do not use this skill for patient-specific diagnosis, prognosis, treatment selection, or medication/device recommendations.
• Do not treat expression, spatial localization, or literature support as target validation.
• Do not label a candidate as a validated biomarker, diagnostic marker, predictive marker, or therapy-ready target.
• Do not skip clinician-scientist review before any target is promoted, rejected, or used in an experiment plan.
• Do not use identifiable patient data in public outputs.

Required Inputs

• Candidate target name, gene symbol, pathway, ligand-receptor pair, cell state, or mechanism label.
• Phenotype anchor from ScarBank, ScarPhoto, ScarTrajectory, ScarResponse, or a de-identified research note.
• Available ScarAtlas evidence, such as bulk, single-cell, spatial, module, or pathway summaries.
• Literature snippets or citations to verify, if available.
• Experimental feasibility constraints, such as tissue access, assay type, comparator group, and local governance.
• Intended use of the review packet, such as nomination, rejection, prioritization, or validation planning.

Workflow

1. Confirm the review is research-only and de-identified.
2. Define the candidate target and the exact phenotype anchor.
3. Separate evidence into clinical, imaging, trajectory, endpoint, omics, literature, and validation-feasibility layers.
4. Assess evidence provenance:
   • source dataset or document
   • modality
   • scar or keloid relevance
   • cell type, tissue region, or pathway context
   • directionality and consistency
   • missing comparator or follow-up limitations
5. Identify contradictions, confounders, and reasons to downgrade confidence.
6. State what the evidence can support as a research nomination and what it cannot support.
7. Produce a clinician-scientist review checklist with unresolved questions.

Output Format

• Candidate target
• Input evidence inventory
• Phenotype anchor and uncertainty
• Omics evidence table
• Literature evidence table
• Experimental feasibility notes
• Contradictions and downgrade reasons
• Safety boundary
• Clinician-scientist review requirement
• No treatment recommendation statement
• No validated biomarker claim statement
• Research-only evidence summary

Safety

Safety boundary: this skill supports research evidence organization and clinician-scientist review only. It does not diagnose, prescribe, determine recurrence, validate therapeutic targets, recommend treatment, or replace licensed clinical judgment. Escalate urgent symptoms, suspected infection, wound breakdown, severe pain, rapid progression, bleeding, ulceration, or functional compromise to a qualified clinician.

Clinician-scientist review requirement: every output must be reviewed by a qualified clinician-scientist before it is used for target nomination, experiment planning, manuscript claims, or collaborator communication.

No treatment recommendation: do not suggest that a patient should receive, avoid, start, stop, or choose any treatment based on the target evidence.

No validated biomarker claim: do not describe any reviewed target as a validated biomarker, diagnostic marker, predictive marker, treatment-response marker, or clinically actionable marker.

Examples

Review CXCL14 as an exploratory keloid target candidate using the ScarAtlas single-cell and spatial summaries, then list evidence gaps and clinician-scientist questions.

Integration

Works well with scar-target-nomination, scar-experiment-validation-critic, scar-literature-review, recurrence-risk-factor-extraction, and ScarAtlas target-discovery tables.