Write comprehensive literature reviews for medical imaging AI research. Use when writing survey papers, systematic reviews, or literature analyses on topics like segmentation, detection, classification in CT, MRI, X-ray, ultrasound, or pathology imaging. Triggers on requests f...
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add aipoch/medical-research-skills --skill medical-imaging-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Medical Imaging Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/aipoch-medical-imaging-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: medical-imaging-review
description: Write comprehensive literature reviews for medical imaging AI research. Use when writing survey papers, systematic reviews, or literature analyses on topics like segmentation, detection, classification in CT, MRI, X-ray, ultrasound, or pathology imaging. Triggers on requests f...
license: MIT
author: AIPOCH
---
> **Source**: [https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills](https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills)
# Medical Imaging AI Literature Review Skill
Write comprehensive literature reviews following a systematic 7-phase workflow.
## Quick Start
1. **Initialize project** with three core files:
- `CLAUDE.md` - Writing guidelines and terminology
- `IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md` - Staged execution plan
- `manuscript_draft.md` - Main manuscript
2. **Follow the 7-phase workflow** (see [references/WORKFLOW.md](references/WORKFLOW.md))
3. **Use domain-specific templates** (see [references/DOMAINS.md](references/DOMAINS.md))
---
## Core Principles
### Writing Style
- **Hedging language**: "may", "suggests", "appears to", "has shown promising results"
- **Avoid absolutes**: Never say "X is the best method"
- **Citation support**: Every claim needs reference
- **Limitations**: Each method section needs a Limitations paragraph
### Required Elements
- **Key Points box** (3-5 bullets) after title
- **Comparison table** for each major section
- **Performance metrics**: Dice (0.XXX), HD95 (X.XX mm)
- **Figure placeholders** with detailed captions
- **References**: 80-120 typical, organized by topic
### Paragraph Structure
```
Topic sentence (main claim)
→ Supporting evidence (citations + data)
→ Analysis (critical evaluation)
→ Transition to next paragraph
```
---
## Literature Sources
Use multi-source strategy for comprehensive coverage:
| Source | Best For | Tools |
|--------|----------|-------|
| ArXiv | Latest DL methods, preprints | `search_papers`, `read_paper` |
| PubMed | Clinical validation, peer-reviewed | `pubmed_search_articles` |
| Zotero | Existing library, organized refs | `zotero_search_items` |
For MCP configuration details, see [references/MCP_SETUP.md](references/MCP_SETUP.md).
---
## Standard Review Structure
```markdown
# [Title]: State of the Art and Future Directions
## Key Points
- [3-5 bullets summarizing main findings]
## Abstract
## 1. Introduction
### 1.1 Clinical Background
### 1.2 Technical Challenges
### 1.3 Scope and Contributions
## 2. Datasets and Evaluation Metrics
### 2.1 Public Datasets (Table 1)
### 2.2 Evaluation Metrics
## 3. Deep Learning Methods
### 3.1 [Category 1]
### 3.2 [Category 2]
(Table 2: Method Comparison)
## 4. Downstream Applications
## 5. Commercial Products & Clinical Translation (Table 3)
## 6. Discussion
### 6.1 Current Limitations
### 6.2 Future Directions
## 7. Conclusion
## Input Validation
This skill accepts requests that match the documented purpose of `medical-imaging-review` and include enough context to complete the workflow safely.
Do not continue the workflow when the request is out of scope, missing a critical input, or would require unsupported assumptions. Instead respond:
> `medical-imaging-review` only handles its documented workflow. Please provide the missing required inputs or switch to a more suitable skill.
## References
```
---
## Method Description Template
```markdown
### 3.X [Method Category]
[1-2 paragraph introduction with motivation]
**[Method Name]:** [Author] et al. [ref] proposed [method], which [innovation]:
- [Key component 1]
- [Key component 2]
Achieves Dice of X.XX on [dataset].
**Limitations:** Despite advantages, [category] methods face:
(1) [limit 1]; (2) [limit 2].
```
---
## Citation Patterns
```markdown
# Data citation
"...achieved Dice of 0.89 [23]"
# Method citation
"Gu et al. [45] proposed..."
# Multi-citation
"Several studies demonstrated... [12, 15, 23]"
# Comparative
"While [12] focused on..., [15] addressed..."
```
---
## Reference Files
| File | Purpose |
|------|---------|
| [references/WORKFLOW.md](references/WORKFLOW.md) | Detailed 7-phase workflow |
| [references/TEMPLATES.md](references/TEMPLATES.md) | CLAUDE.md and IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md templates |
| [references/DOMAINS.md](references/DOMAINS.md) | Domain-specific method categories |
| [references/MCP_SETUP.md](references/MCP_SETUP.md) | MCP server configuration |
| [references/QUALITY_CHECKLIST.md](references/QUALITY_CHECKLIST.md) | Pre-submission quality checklist |
## Error Handling
- If required inputs are missing, state exactly which fields are missing and request only the minimum additional information.
- If the task goes outside the documented scope, stop instead of guessing or silently widening the assignment.
- If execution fails, report the failure point, summarize what can still be completed safely, and provide a manual fallback.
- Do not fabricate files, citations, data, search results, or execution outcomes.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!