quapas-quality-assessment-for-prognosis-studies
Evaluates bias in medical literature (prognosis studies) using QUAPAS criteria. Use when the user wants to assess the quality or risk of bias of a medical paper text.
Best use case
quapas-quality-assessment-for-prognosis-studies is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Evaluates bias in medical literature (prognosis studies) using QUAPAS criteria. Use when the user wants to assess the quality or risk of bias of a medical paper text.
Teams using quapas-quality-assessment-for-prognosis-studies should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/quapas-quality-assessment-for-prognosis-studies/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How quapas-quality-assessment-for-prognosis-studies Compares
| Feature / Agent | quapas-quality-assessment-for-prognosis-studies | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Evaluates bias in medical literature (prognosis studies) using QUAPAS criteria. Use when the user wants to assess the quality or risk of bias of a medical paper text.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
> **Source**: [https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills](https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills)
# QUAPAS Bias Evaluator
## When to Use
- Use this skill when you need evaluates bias in medical literature (prognosis studies) using quapas criteria. use when the user wants to assess the quality or risk of bias of a medical paper text in a reproducible workflow.
- Use this skill when a data analytics task needs a packaged method instead of ad-hoc freeform output.
- Use this skill when the user expects a concrete deliverable, validation step, or file-based result.
- Use this skill when `scripts/extract_pdf.py` is the most direct path to complete the request.
- Use this skill when you need the `quapas-quality-assessment for prognosis studies` package behavior rather than a generic answer.
## Key Features
- Scope-focused workflow aligned to: Evaluates bias in medical literature (prognosis studies) using QUAPAS criteria. Use when the user wants to assess the quality or risk of bias of a medical paper text.
- Packaged executable path(s): `scripts/extract_pdf.py`.
- Reference material available in `references/` for task-specific guidance.
- Structured execution path designed to keep outputs consistent and reviewable.
## Dependencies
- `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.
## Example Usage
```bash
cd "20260316/scientific-skills/Data Analytics/quapas-quality-assessment-for-prognosis-studies"
python -m py_compile scripts/extract_pdf.py
python scripts/extract_pdf.py --help
```
Example run plan:
1. Confirm the user input, output path, and any required config values.
2. Edit the in-file `CONFIG` block or documented parameters if the script uses fixed settings.
3. Run `python scripts/extract_pdf.py` with the validated inputs.
4. Review the generated output and return the final artifact with any assumptions called out.
## Implementation Details
See `## Workflow` above for related details.
- Execution model: validate the request, choose the packaged workflow, and produce a bounded deliverable.
- Input controls: confirm the source files, scope limits, output format, and acceptance criteria before running any script.
- Primary implementation surface: `scripts/extract_pdf.py`.
- Reference guidance: `references/` contains supporting rules, prompts, or checklists.
- Parameters to clarify first: input path, output path, scope filters, thresholds, and any domain-specific constraints.
- Output discipline: keep results reproducible, identify assumptions explicitly, and avoid undocumented side effects.
## Description
This skill evaluates the risk of bias in prognosis studies using the Quality of Prognosis Studies (QUAPAS) tool. It analyzes 5 domains: Participants, Index Test, Outcome, Flow and Timing, and Analysis.
## Workflow
1. **Input**: The user provides the full text of a medical paper.
2. **Study Extraction**:
- Extract the first author's name and year (e.g., "Wang, 2018").
3. **Domain Analysis**:
For each of the 5 domains, analyze the text using the questions defined in `references/quapas_prompts.md`.
- **Domain 1**: Participants
- **Domain 2**: Index Test
- **Domain 3**: Outcome
- **Domain 4**: Flow and Timing
- **Domain 5**: Analysis
4. **Risk of Bias (ROB) Assessment**:
For each domain, determine the Risk of Bias (Low, High, Unclear) based on the answers to the signaling questions:
- If **all** answers are "Yes" -> **Low Risk**.
- If **any** answer is "No" -> **High Risk**.
- If information is missing -> **Unclear**.
5. **Overall Judgment**:
Determine the overall risk of bias for the study based on the domain results.
- If most domains are Low Risk -> Low Overall Bias.
- If key domains are High Risk -> High Overall Bias.
6. **Final Output**:
Generate a JSON object strictly following the schema below:
```json
{
"study": "Author, Year",
"D1": "Low|High|Unclear",
"D2": "Low|High|Unclear",
"D3": "Low|High|Unclear",
"D4": "Low|High|Unclear",
"D5": "Low|High|Unclear",
"overall": "Low|High|Unclear"
}
```
## References
- See [references/quapas_prompts.md](references/quapas_prompts.md) for detailed signaling questions and prompt logic.
## Helper Scripts
### PDF Text Extraction
When the user provides a PDF file path, use `extract_pdf.py` to extract the text content before assessment:Related Skills
rct-bias-assessment-rob2
Automates Risk of Bias 2 (ROB2) assessment for RCT papers by analyzing text against specific domains and synthesizing a report. Use when you need to assess the quality of a clinical trial paper or evaluate risk of bias.
quality-assessment
Automates critical appraisal and quality assessment for research papers by analyzing text against established methodological standards (such as risk of bias tools, quality checklists, or reporting guidelines) and synthesizing a structured evaluation report. Use when you need to assess the methodological quality, internal validity, or reporting completeness of any type of study—including RCTs, observational studies, systematic reviews, qualitative research, or diagnostic accuracy studies.
probast-quality-assessment-for-prediction-model-studies
Assess bias in medical prediction model studies using PROBAST tool. Use when user wants to evaluate the quality or risk of bias of a medical paper (text or PDF).
diagnostic-study-quality-assessment-quadas-2
Analyzes clinical diagnostic accuracy studies for bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. Use when Claude needs to assess the quality, risk of bias, or applicability of diagnostic accuracy studies (e.g., "Assess this paper using QUADAS-2").
cohort-study-quality-assessment-nos
Evaluates the quality of cohort studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Use when the user provides a cohort study article or text and needs a quality assessment report.
case-control-study-quality-assessment-nos
Clinical Research Bias Assessment - Case-Control Study (NOS) v2.3.0. Use when you need to assess the bias of a case-control study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) criteria, or when evaluating the quality of a medical paper.
skill-auditor
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.
two-sample-mr-research-planner
Generates complete two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) research designs from a user-provided research direction. Use when users want to design, plan, or build a study using two-sample MR to test causal relationships. Triggers:"design a two-sample MR study", "build a publishable MR paper", "test whether this biomarker causally affects this disease", "generate Lite/Standard/Advanced MR plans", "screen multiple exposures with MR", "bidirectional MR design", "causal inference using GWAS summary statistics", or "I want to study X and Y using MR". Always outputs four workload configurations (Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+) with a recommended primary plan, step-by-step workflow, figure plan, validation strategy, minimal executable version, and publication upgrade path.
research-proposal-generator
Generates a comprehensive research proposal design based on input literature, including hypothesis, mechanism verification, and budget. Use when the user wants to design a research project from a paper.
research-grants
Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan's NSTC when you need agency-compliant narratives, budgets, and review-criteria alignment for a specific solicitation/FOA/BAA.
protocol-standardization
Standardize fragmented experimental steps into reproducible protocol documents when you need method organization, lab SOP drafting, or cross-operator reproducibility; missing parameters must be explicitly marked as "To be supplemented/Not provided".
prospero-registration-helper
Assists researchers in generating PROSPERO registration content for meta-analyses from a title and optional protocol. Use when the user wants to draft a PROSPERO registration form.