home / skills / luwill / research-skills / medical-imaging-review
This skill generates comprehensive medical imaging literature reviews following a structured seven-phase workflow, ensuring systematic citations, method
npx playbooks add skill luwill/research-skills --skill medical-imaging-reviewReview the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.
---
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 for "review paper",
"survey", "literature review", "综述", "systematic review", or mentions of
writing academic reviews on deep learning for medical imaging.
metadata:
author: user
version: "2.0.0"
allowed-tools:
- Read
- Write
- Edit
- Glob
- Grep
- Bash
- WebSearch
- WebFetch
- Task
- mcp__arxiv-mcp-server__search_papers
- mcp__arxiv-mcp-server__download_paper
- mcp__arxiv-mcp-server__read_paper
- mcp__pubmed-mcp-server__pubmed_search_articles
- mcp__zotero__zotero_search_items
- mcp__zotero__zotero_get_item_fulltext
---
# 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
## 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 |
This skill produces comprehensive literature reviews for medical imaging AI research, following a systematic 7-phase workflow and domain-specific templates. It is designed to create structured survey papers, systematic reviews, and critical literature analyses across modalities such as CT, MRI, X-ray, ultrasound, and pathology imaging.
The skill guides you through staged execution: project initialization, targeted literature search across sources (preprints and peer-reviewed), structured method synthesis, quantitative comparisons, and manuscript drafting with required elements (key points, comparison tables, metrics, and figure placeholders). It enforces hedging language, citation support for claims, and explicit limitations for every method section.
How many references should a comprehensive review include?
Typical comprehensive reviews include roughly 80–120 references, organized by topic and use case.
Which data sources are recommended for balanced coverage?
Combine arXiv for recent preprints, PubMed for peer-reviewed clinical studies, and a reference manager (e.g., Zotero) to organize citations.