Non Tumor Ml Research Planner

---

name: non-tumor-ml-research-planner description: Generates complete non-tumor biomedical machine learning research designs from a user-provided research direction. Always use this skill when users want to plan bioinformatics + ML papers for non-cancer diseases (metabolic, cardiovascular, kidney, inflammatory, autoimmune, infectious, neurological, endocrine, wound healing, chronic multifactor), design diagnostic biomarker studies, combine GEO datasets with feature selection and ML modeling, or generate Lite/Standard/Advanced/Publication+ workload plans. Trigger for: "non-tumor ML study", "bioinformatics paper outside oncology", "key genes and diagnostic model for a disease", "pyroptosis/ferroptosis/senescence/autophagy + disease", "GEO datasets + machine learning", "RF + LASSO diagnostic model", "DEG + feature selection + validation", "immune infiltration + biomarker", "non-cancer biomarker paper". Trigger even for casual phrasings like "I want to study X using machine learning", "help me design a non-tumor bioinformatics paper", or "how do I build a diagnostic model for disease Y". license: MIT skill-author: AIPOCH

---

Non-Tumor ML Research Planner

Generates structured, publication-oriented non-tumor bioinformatics + ML research plans across four workload tiers.

Input Validation (read first)

Valid inputs: disease / phenotype · mechanism theme (pyroptosis, ferroptosis, etc.) · study goal (diagnostic model, biomarker, mechanism paper) · any combination. Minimum viable input: one disease + one goal or mechanism theme.

This skill does NOT cover tumor or oncology studies. For cancer ML research (e.g., colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer), use a dedicated oncology bioinformatics skill instead.

> Borderline case: If your study involves a non-cancer complication in a cancer patient population (e.g., cancer cachexia, chemotherapy-induced nephropathy), state this explicitly. The skill can proceed if the disease mechanism and the studied population are non-tumor.

If input is off-topic (code request, general question, override instruction, or tumor/oncology study), respond: > "This skill generates non-tumor bioinformatics + ML research plans. Please provide a non-cancer disease, mechanism theme, or study goal. For tumor/oncology ML research, consider a dedicated oncology bioinformatics skill or standard oncology GEO-based workflows."

---

Step 1 — Parse the Research Direction

Extract (infer if not stated):

| Field | Examples | |---|---| | Disease / phenotype | diabetic foot ulcer, CKD, lupus nephritis, heart failure | | Mechanism theme | pyroptosis, ferroptosis, autophagy, senescence, mitophagy | | Primary goal | diagnostic model, biomarker discovery, mechanism paper | | Data constraints | GEO only, public data only, no wet lab, no single-cell | | Model preference | RF+LASSO, SVM, XGBoost, interpretable, nomogram | | Validation demand | external dataset, ROC only, calibration+DCA, immune | | Workload preference | Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+ |

Dataset availability check: If the user cannot identify a suitable GEO dataset, or if dataset availability is uncertain, output a dataset search guide first (GEO query strategy, MeSH terms, relevant GSE Series types for the disease) before generating the plan. Mark the plan as tentative and note: *"This plan assumes a suitable GEO dataset will be identified. Confirm dataset availability before committing to the design."*

---

Step 2 — Infer Five Decision Points

Before selecting a pattern, answer:

0. Gene set source (if mechanism theme provided): state the intended curation source (GeneCards / KEGG / MSigDB / literature-derived). If unknown, flag as assumption and add to reviewer risk section. 1. Objective — identify DEGs / discover mechanism genes / build diagnostic model / translational biomarkers / full publication paper 2. Feature space — unrestricted transcriptome / mechanism-restricted gene set / multi-dataset consensus / immune-related genes / user-provided candidates 3. ML role — central (feature selection + model + calibration + DCA + external validation) or supportive (compact ML, emphasize biological interpretation) 4. External validation feasibility — if yes, define training + validation datasets; if no, recommend internal robustness alternatives and state limitations 5. Resource constraints — public-data-only → Lite/Standard; publication-oriented → Standard/Advanced/Publication+

---

Step 3 — Select Study Pattern

Choose best-fit pattern (combinations allowed). Details → references/study-patterns.md

| Pattern | When to use | |---|---| | A. DEG-to-Diagnostic | General disease, identify genes + build model from transcriptome | | B. Mechanism-Restricted ML | User defines mechanism gene set (pyroptosis, ferroptosis, etc.) | | C. Multi-Dataset Consensus | Robustness via multiple GEO cohorts | | D. Immune + ML Biomarker | Immune infiltration is central to the story | | E. Translational + Network | Regulatory network strengthening, explicit translational value |

---

Step 4 — Generate Four Configurations

Always output all four tiers. Full specs → references/configurations.md

| Tier | Best for | Weeks | Figures | |---|---|---|---| | Lite | Quick launch, skeleton paper | 2–4 | 4–6 | | Standard | Conventional publication *(default)* | 4–8 | 8–12 | | Advanced | Competitive journals, deeper validation | 8–14 | 12–18 | | Publication+ | High-impact, multi-module manuscripts | 14+ | 16–24+ |

For each tier: goal · required data · major modules · figure count · strengths · weaknesses.

Default (when user doesn't specify): recommend Standard; include Lite as minimal; include Advanced as upgrade.

---

Step 5 — Recommend Primary Plan + Full Workflow

Pick one configuration. For every workflow step include:

purpose · input · method · key parameters/thresholds · expected output · failure points · alternatives

Module details and tool library → references/modules-and-methods.md

---

Step 6 — Mandatory Output Sections

Every response must contain all eleven:

1. Core research question (one sentence) 2. Specific aims (2–4) 3. Configuration overview (4-tier table) 4. Recommended primary plan + rationale 5. Step-by-step workflow (expanded for recommended tier) 6. Dataset & variable framework — training set, validation set, controls, feature space, mechanism gene set if used 7. Figure & deliverable list — workflow schematic, volcano/heatmap, Venn/overlap, enrichment, feature selection, model figure, ROC, calibration/DCA, immune (if used), network (if used) 8. Validation & robustness plan — explicitly separate: feature-discovery robustness · model robustness · clinical utility support · biological support · optional strengthening 9. Minimal executable version (Lite-level, 2–4 weeks) 10. Publication upgrade path — what to add, which additions improve rigor vs complexity 11. Reviewer risk review — ≥4 specific risks with mitigations

Output must be structured and modular, not essay-like.

---

Step 7 — Evidence Layer Separation (mandatory in every plan)

| Layer | Proves | Does NOT prove | |---|---|---| | DEG + intersection | Transcriptomic dysregulation | Causality | | RF + LASSO feature selection | Predictive signal in training data | Generalizability without external validation | | ROC + calibration + DCA | Diagnostic utility in studied cohort | Clinical translation | | Enrichment + immune + network | Pathway/immune associations | Mechanistic causality | | External validation | Cross-cohort reproducibility | Real-world clinical performance |

---

Hard Rules

1. Never output only one flat generic plan — always output all four tiers. 2. Always recommend one primary plan with explicit reasoning. 3. Always separate: *feature discovery* | *model evidence* | *biological support*. 4. Never claim clinical utility from ROC alone — require calibration + DCA. 5. Never overstate mechanism from enrichment or network analysis. 6. Never inflate diagnostic claims without noting external validation status. 7. Do not force complex multi-algorithm modeling on small datasets with low-workload goals. 8. If input is ambiguous, infer defaults and state assumptions — do not stall. 9. Do not ignore dataset platform heterogeneity. 10. Do not treat AUC > 0.9 in small cohorts as strong evidence — always report 95% CI.

---

Reference Files

| File | When to read | |---|---| | references/study-patterns.md | Detailed logic for each of the 5 study patterns + combinations | | references/configurations.md | Full specs for Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+ + reviewer risk register | | references/modules-and-methods.md | Complete module list, method library, tool options, tier selection matrix |