runchuan-bu/bioclaw/bio-innovation-check

bio-innovation-check

Step 1: Innovation assessment (创新性检测)

Estimate whether a research idea is sufficiently novel for a strong methods-style paper by expanding the topic and searching the literature.

Purpose

1. Generate multiple topic variants and synonyms
2. Search PubMed, bioRxiv, and arXiv q-bio
3. Count and de-duplicate related papers
4. Assign a novelty level
5. Suggest how to sharpen or reposition the idea if needed

Input Format

topic: [research topic]

Workflow

Step 1.1: Topic expansion

Use several types of expansions:

1. Core term substitution
2. Phrase re-ordering
3. Parent / child concept expansion
4. Adjacent-domain vocabulary borrowing
5. Method keyword enrichment

Example:

• "spatial multi-omics integration"
• "integration of spatial transcriptomics and proteomics"
• "spatial multi-modal data fusion"

Target output: 15-20 topic variants by default.

Step 1.2: Literature search

Search these sources:

• PubMed
• bioRxiv
• arXiv q-bio

Suggested pattern:

for variant in topic_variants:
    results = search(variant, platforms=["PubMed", "bioRxiv", "arXiv"])
    all_papers.extend(results)
unique_papers = deduplicate(all_papers, threshold=0.8)

Step 1.3: Novelty scoring

Use a simple first-pass threshold:

if paper_count <= 2:
    level = "strong novelty / methods-journal candidate"
elif paper_count <= 5:
    level = "promising but needs sharpening"
else:
    level = "needs repositioning"

This is only a heuristic. Final judgment should still use human reasoning.

Step 1.4: Repositioning suggestions

If the project is not yet strong enough, suggest improvements from one or more of these angles:

1. Method angle
2. Task angle
3. Data / validation angle
4. Analysis angle

Output Format

# Innovation Assessment Report
 
## Search Strategy
-Number of variants:
-Search sources:
-Search date:
 
## Topic Variants
| No. | Variant |
|-----|---------|
| 1 | ... |
 
## Search Results Summary
| Variant | PubMed | bioRxiv | arXiv | Total |
|---------|--------|---------|-------|-------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
 
## De-duplicated Counts
-Total related studies:
-Published papers:
-Preprints:
 
## Novelty Decision
-Level:
-Reason:
 
## Representative Related Work
1.[title]
   -Source:
   -Year:
   -Main method:
   -Overlap with the proposed idea:
 
## Repositioning Suggestions
1.Method:
2.Task:
3.Data / validation:
 
## Next Step
-If novelty is strong: continue to Step 2
-If the idea needs sharpening: refine and continue
-If it needs repositioning: redesign before proceeding

Usage

/bio-innovation-check "spatial multi-omics integration"

Notes

1. Use timeouts because search latency varies by source.
2. De-duplication matters; otherwise novelty will be overestimated or underestimated.
3. Overlap scoring still needs human judgment.
4. Journal-specific novelty expectations can differ by field.