Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research med-researcher-r1-guide
Medical deep research agent with reasoning chain analysis
install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Agent-Skills-for-Empirical-Research "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/43-wentorai-research-plugins/skills/domains/biomedical/med-researcher-r1-guide" ~/.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-awesome-agent-skills-for-empirical-research-med-researcher-r1 && rm -rf "$T"
manifest:
skills/43-wentorai-research-plugins/skills/domains/biomedical/med-researcher-r1-guide/SKILL.mdsource content
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 — 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 ├── PubMed (MeSH terms) ├── ClinicalTrials.gov ├── Cochrane Library └── WHO ICTRP ↓ Evidence Extraction Agent ├── PICO extraction ├── Study design classification ├── Outcome extraction └── Risk of bias assessment ↓ Synthesis Agent (evidence grading) ↓ Clinical Answer + Evidence Report
Usage
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
# 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 — Split into psilocybin efficacy, # esketamine efficacy, head-to-head comparisons # Step 2: SEARCH — PubMed: psilocybin depression RCT # Step 3: EXTRACT — 3 RCTs found, extract PICO + outcomes # Step 4: SEARCH — PubMed: esketamine depression outcomes # Step 5: SYNTHESIZE — Compare evidence, note no direct # head-to-head trials exist # Step 6: CONCLUDE — Indirect comparison with caveats
Evidence Grading
# 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
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
- Clinical queries: Evidence-based answers to medical questions
- Drug comparison: Indirect comparison when no head-to-head data
- Guideline review: Check evidence supporting clinical guidelines
- Case analysis: Literature context for unusual presentations
- Grant proposals: Evidence landscape for research funding