Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Replicate an existing cohort study's methodology on a different database. Extracts study design from a source paper, maps variables to the target DB via harmonization table, generates analysis code, and produces a replication difference report.
.claude/skills/aperivue-replicate-study/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 44% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 134% | 0% |
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 39% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 31% | 0% |
| case-15 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 308% | 0% |
You are assisting a medical researcher in replicating an existing published study's methodology on a different database. This is a common research strategy: take a validated methodology from Paper A (e.g., NHIS cohort study) and apply it to Database B (e.g., KNHANES, NHANES, or another cohort) to produce a new paper with the same analytical rigor.
${SKILL_DIR}/references/harmonization_knhanes_nhanes.csv (if KNHANES↔NHANES)${SKILL_DIR}/references/methodology_extraction_template.md — checklist for extracting study design${SKILL_DIR}/references/harmonization_knhanes_nhanes.csv — KNHANES↔NHANES variable mapping (67 rows)${SKILL_DIR}/references/harmonization_3country.csv — KNHANES+NHANES+CHNS 3-country mapping (45 rows, if available)medsci-skills/skills/write-paper/references/paper_types/nhis_cohort.mdmedsci-skills/skills/write-paper/references/paper_types/cross_national.mdmedsci-skills/skills/analyze-stats/references/analysis_guides/survey_weighted.mdmedsci-skills/skills/analyze-stats/references/analysis_guides/propensity_score.mdpandas + R via subprocess for survey-weighted):a. Data loading & cleaning: read target DB, apply inclusion/exclusion b. Variable derivation: recode variables per mapping table c. Survey design setup: define svydesign object (strata, PSU, weights) d. Table 1: demographics by exposure group (weighted) e. Main analysis: replicate the primary model (logistic/Cox/linear regression) f. Subgroup analyses: if specified in source paper g. Sensitivity analyses: replicate all listed in source paper
/analyze-stats templates where available (survey_weighted, propensity_score).Generate a structured difference report documenting:
| Section | Content | |---------|---------| | Study Design | Same / Modified (explain) | | Database | Source DB → Target DB (N, years, country) | | Population | Inclusion/exclusion differences | | Variable Mapping | Full mapping table with match status | | Unavailable Variables | What's missing and how handled | | Methodological Differences | Any forced changes (e.g., BMI cutoffs, LDL calculation) | | Expected Differences | Why results may differ (population, measurement, cultural) |
Save as replication_report.md in the working directory.
Before reporting completion, verify:
/define-variables to cross-check whether to mirror the legacy definition (pure replication) or upgrade to current (extension). Document the choice explicitly in the difference report.{working_dir}/
├── replication_report.md — Structured difference report
├── variable_mapping.csv — Variable mapping table with match status
├── analysis_code.py — Main analysis script (Python + R calls)
├── analysis_code.R — R script for survey-weighted analysis
└── results/
├── table1.csv — Demographics table
├── main_results.csv — Primary analysis results
└── subgroup_results.csv — Subgroup analysis results (if applicable)/replicate-study
Source paper: Joo 2026 (Psychiatry Research) — depression/diabetes cross-national
Target DB: /path/to/knhanes/HN18.csv
Harmonization: /path/to/harmonization_knhanes_nhanes.csv[VERIFY: variable_name] and ask the user to confirm against the data dictionary./search-lit for all citations.| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 26,290 | 29,052 | +11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 704 | 8,057 | +1044% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 4,888 | 6,810 | +39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 312 | 2,248 | +621% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 30,543 | 29,338 | -4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,259 | 8,056 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 12,908 | 11,754 | -9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,373 | 4,128 | +74% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 18,457 | 10,425 | -44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,335 | 3,516 | +5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 16,058 | 13,789 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,946 | 4,253 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 13,283 | 9,688 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,233 | 3,340 | +50% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 14,311 | 11,518 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,413 | 3,602 | +49% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 7,169 | 4,986 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,103 | 2,577 | +134% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 4,825 | 6,052 | +25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 835 | 2,924 | +250% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 11,347 | 4,991 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,937 | 2,686 | +39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 12,359 | 6,741 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,234 | 2,934 | +31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 11,428 | 7,859 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,826 | 3,045 | +67% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | 9,672 | 7,612 | -21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,467 | 3,070 | +109% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 23,321 | 9,240 | -60% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 802 | 3,273 | +308% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 15,922 | 12,830 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,050 | 4,304 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | 11,996 | 5,737 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,917 | 2,705 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 10,492 | 11,126 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,957 | 3,824 | +95% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 6,245 | 7,595 | +22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,155 | 3,140 | +172% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 30,866 | 28,265 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,166 | 6,904 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 19,168 | 21,292 | +11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,047 | 5,280 | +73% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 8,368 | 11,879 | +42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,501 | 3,908 | +160% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 19 counted toward the lift figure. The other 3 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +23 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 19 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.