Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Semantic Similarity Index for disease research literature using PubMedBERT embeddings
.claude/skills/claw-semantic-sim/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-20 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-16 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-15 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
Measure how isolated or connected disease research is across the global biomedical literature, using PubMedBERT embeddings on PubMed abstracts spanning 175 GBD diseases.
If you ask ChatGPT to "measure research neglect for diseases," it will:
This skill encodes the correct methodological decisions:
Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are significantly more semantically isolated than other conditions (P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.8+). They exist in knowledge silos with limited cross-disciplinary research bridges. The 25 most isolated diseases are disproportionately Global South priority conditions.
05-00-heim-sem-setup.py # Validate environment, create directories
05-01-heim-sem-fetch.py # Retrieve PubMed abstracts (checkpointed)
05-02-heim-sem-embed.py # Generate PubMedBERT embeddings (MPS/CPU)
05-03-heim-sem-compute.py # Compute SII, KTP, RCC, temporal drift
05-04-heim-sem-figures.py # Generate publication figures
05-05-heim-sem-integrate.py # Merge with biobank + clinical trial dimensionsbashpython semantic_sim.py --demo --output demo_report
The demo uses pre-computed embeddings and metrics for 175 GBD diseases and generates the full 4-panel figure instantly.
Semantic Similarity Index
=========================
Diseases analysed: 175
Total PubMed abstracts: 13,100,000
Embedding model: PubMedBERT (768-dim)
Metric Ranges:
SII: 0.0412 - 0.1893
KTP: 0.6234 - 0.9187
RCC: 0.0891 - 0.3421
Key Finding:
NTDs show +38% higher semantic isolation
P < 0.0001, Cohen's d = 0.84
14/25 most isolated diseases are Global South priority
Figures saved to: demo_report/
Fig5_Semantic_Structure.png (300 dpi)
Fig5_Semantic_Structure.pdf (vector)
Reproducibility:
commands.sh | environment.yml | checksums.sha256If you use this skill in a publication, please cite:
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 18 counted toward the lift figure. The other 4 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 +41 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 18 comparable cases.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.