Skip to content
Back to skills

Med Researcher R1 Guide

ASecurity

Medical deep research agent with reasoning chain analysis

  • 3,639 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 5 views
  • Added June 6, 2026
researchpythongogitapibackend

Works with

  • cli
  • api

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned June 6, 2026

npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills --skill med-researcher-r1-guide --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Med Researcher R1 Guide?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Med Researcher R1 Guide
[![Security: A β€” Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/brycewang-stanford-med-researcher-r1-guide/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-med-researcher-r1-guide)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: med-researcher-r1-guide
description: "Medical deep research agent with reasoning chain analysis"
metadata:
  openclaw:
    emoji: "🩺"
    category: "domains"
    subcategory: "biomedical"
    keywords: ["medical research", "deep research", "clinical reasoning", "PubMed", "medical agent", "evidence-based"]
    source: "https://github.com/AQ-MedAI/MedResearcher-R1"
---

# MedResearcher-R1 Guide

## Overview

MedResearcher-R1 is a medical deep research agent that combines clinical reasoning chains with iterative literature search to answer complex medical questions. Unlike general research agents, it is specialized for medical evidence β€” understanding clinical trial designs, PICO frameworks, evidence hierarchies, and medical terminology. Uses reasoning chain analysis (R1) to decompose clinical questions and systematically gather evidence.

## Architecture

```
Clinical Question
      ↓
  R1 Reasoning Chain (decompose into sub-questions)
      ↓
  Medical Search Agent
  β”œβ”€β”€ PubMed (MeSH terms)
  β”œβ”€β”€ ClinicalTrials.gov
  β”œβ”€β”€ Cochrane Library
  └── WHO ICTRP
      ↓
  Evidence Extraction Agent
  β”œβ”€β”€ PICO extraction
  β”œβ”€β”€ Study design classification
  β”œβ”€β”€ Outcome extraction
  └── Risk of bias assessment
      ↓
  Synthesis Agent (evidence grading)
      ↓
  Clinical Answer + Evidence Report
```

## Usage

```python
from med_researcher_r1 import MedResearcherR1

researcher = MedResearcherR1(
    llm_provider="anthropic",
    search_backends=["pubmed", "clinical_trials", "cochrane"],
)

# Complex clinical question
result = researcher.research(
    question="In patients with treatment-resistant depression, "
             "how does psilocybin-assisted therapy compare to "
             "esketamine in terms of remission rates and "
             "long-term outcomes?",
    evidence_level="systematic",  # systematic, rapid, scoping
    max_papers=50,
)

print(result.summary)
print(f"\nEvidence quality: {result.evidence_grade}")
print(f"Papers analyzed: {len(result.papers)}")
```

## Reasoning Chain

```python
# Inspect the R1 reasoning chain
for step in result.reasoning_chain:
    print(f"\nStep {step.number}: {step.type}")
    print(f"  Question: {step.question}")
    print(f"  Strategy: {step.search_strategy}")
    print(f"  Findings: {step.key_finding}")
    print(f"  Next: {step.next_action}")

# Example chain:
# Step 1: DECOMPOSE β€” Split into psilocybin efficacy,
#          esketamine efficacy, head-to-head comparisons
# Step 2: SEARCH β€” PubMed: psilocybin depression RCT
# Step 3: EXTRACT β€” 3 RCTs found, extract PICO + outcomes
# Step 4: SEARCH β€” PubMed: esketamine depression outcomes
# Step 5: SYNTHESIZE β€” Compare evidence, note no direct
#          head-to-head trials exist
# Step 6: CONCLUDE β€” Indirect comparison with caveats
```

## Evidence Grading

```python
# GRADE methodology for evidence quality
for paper in result.papers[:5]:
    print(f"\n{paper.title} ({paper.year})")
    print(f"  Design: {paper.study_design}")
    print(f"  Sample: {paper.sample_size}")
    print(f"  Grade: {paper.evidence_grade}")
    print(f"  Risk of bias: {paper.risk_of_bias}")

# Aggregate evidence
print(f"\nOverall certainty: {result.certainty}")
# HIGH / MODERATE / LOW / VERY LOW
print(f"Recommendation: {result.recommendation}")
```

## Medical Search Configuration

```python
researcher = MedResearcherR1(
    search_config={
        "pubmed": {
            "use_mesh": True,
            "date_range": "2019/01/01:2025/12/31",
            "article_types": [
                "Randomized Controlled Trial",
                "Meta-Analysis",
                "Systematic Review",
            ],
        },
        "clinical_trials": {
            "status": ["Completed", "Active, not recruiting"],
            "phase": ["Phase 3", "Phase 4"],
        },
    },
    reasoning_config={
        "max_chain_length": 10,
        "reflection_enabled": True,
        "uncertainty_explicit": True,
    },
)
```

## Clinical Use Cases

1. **Clinical queries**: Evidence-based answers to medical questions
2. **Drug comparison**: Indirect comparison when no head-to-head data
3. **Guideline review**: Check evidence supporting clinical guidelines
4. **Case analysis**: Literature context for unusual presentations
5. **Grant proposals**: Evidence landscape for research funding

## References

- [MedResearcher-R1 GitHub](https://github.com/AQ-MedAI/MedResearcher-R1)
- [PubMed E-utilities](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25501/)
- [GRADE Handbook](https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html)

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.