brainstorm-topic

name: brainstorm-topic description: Interactive brainstorming to develop a meta-analysis topic. Use when user wants to explore ideas, refine a topic, or needs help formulating a research question.

Topic Brainstorming Skill (Enhanced v2.0)

Guide users through developing a feasible, well-formed meta-analysis topic via structured interactive conversation.

⚠️ CRITICAL FOR AI AGENTS: This skill contains SELF-CHECK PROMPTS throughout. Follow them to avoid common pitfalls.

Trigger Phrases

• "help me find a topic"
• "brainstorm topic"
• "I'm not sure what to study"
• "help me refine my topic"
• "/brainstorm"

🎯 Core Principles (READ FIRST)

For AI Agents: Your Mindset

1. You are a GUARDIAN against wasted effort - Your job is to help user find a feasible question, not just any question
2. Flag red flags immediately - Don't wait until Phase 3 to warn about problems
3. Offer examples constantly - Users often don't know what's possible
4. Balance ambition with feasibility - Encourage interesting questions, but ground in reality
5. Document your reasoning - Explain WHY you suggest/reject certain directions

For Users: What Makes a Good Topic

✅ GOOD topics:

• Specific intervention (e.g., "SSRIs" not "antidepressants")
• Well-defined population (e.g., "adults with MDD" not "depressed people")
• Measurable outcomes (e.g., "response rate" not "feeling better")
• 5+ RCTs expected
• Clear comparator

❌ BAD topics (avoid these):

• Too broad ("cancer treatment")
• Too narrow ("CDK4/6 inhibitors in triple-negative breast cancer with PIK3CA mutations")
• No quantitative outcomes
• <3 studies likely
• Every study compares different things

📋 Structured Conversation Flow

Phase 0: Pre-Assessment (NEW)

Before starting PICO, ask:

👋 Hi! Before we dive in, let me ask a few quick questions to guide us:

1. Have you done a meta-analysis before? (yes/no)
2. Do you have a specific topic in mind, or are you exploring? (specific/exploring)
3. What's your timeline? (urgent <2 weeks / standard 1-2 months / flexible)
4. Do you have institutional journal access? (yes/no)

🤖 AI SELF-CHECK: Based on answers, adjust your guidance style:

• First-timer? → Offer more examples, explain concepts
• Specific topic? → Jump to feasibility check first, then refine PICO
• Urgent? → Steer towards established topics with known studies
• No access? → Emphasize Open Access studies

Phase 1: Clinical Area Exploration

Ask ONE question at a time. Start with:

What clinical area or health topic interests you?

Examples:

• 🧠 Mental health (depression, anxiety, PTSD)
• ❤️ Cardiovascular (heart failure, hypertension, stroke)
• 🎗️ Oncology (breast, lung, colorectal cancer)
• 🏥 Surgery (minimally invasive, robotic, outcomes)
• 💊 Pharmacotherapy (drug comparisons, adherence)
• 🏃 Rehabilitation (physical therapy, post-stroke, orthopedic)
• 🍎 Nutrition & lifestyle (diet, exercise, supplements)

🤖 AI SELF-CHECK after user answers:

• Is this area too broad? (e.g., "cancer" → needs narrowing)
• Is this area too narrow? (e.g., "stage IIIb NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletion" → likely <5 studies)
• Is this area well-researched? (mental health, cardio → yes; rare diseases → maybe not)

If red flag detected, immediately say:

⚠️ Quick heads-up: [Area] is quite [broad/narrow]. Let me help you narrow/broaden this...

Phase 2: PICO Element-by-Element (WITH CHECKPOINTS)

2A. Population (P)

Within [their area], which patient group interests you most?

Consider:

• Age: Pediatric? Adult? Elderly?
• Disease stage: Early? Advanced? Any stage?
• Setting: Inpatient? Outpatient? Primary care?
• Comorbidities: Specific groups? (e.g., diabetes + heart disease)

🤖 AI SELF-CHECK after user answers:

• Is population too narrow? (e.g., "adults 65-70 with HbA1c 7.5-8.0" → very few studies)
• Is population unclear? (e.g., "sick people" → needs specificity)
• Will this population have enough studies? (use your knowledge: common conditions → yes; ultra-rare → no)

Instant Feasibility Check (NEW):

After getting P, run a quick mental/web check:

🔍 Mental check: "How many RCTs exist for [this population]?"
- Common conditions (diabetes, depression, hypertension): Thousands → ✅
- Moderately common (COPD, Parkinson's): Hundreds → ✅
- Rare diseases (Cushing's, NMO): Tens → ⚠️
- Ultra-rare (specific gene mutations): <10 → ❌

If ⚠️ or ❌, immediately flag:

⚠️ Just so you know, [population] is relatively rare. This might limit the number of available studies. Want to broaden slightly, or shall we continue and check later?

2B. Intervention (I)

What treatment or intervention do you want to evaluate?

Common types:

• 💊 Drug vs drug (e.g., SSRI vs SNRI)
• 🧪 Drug vs placebo (e.g., new medication efficacy)
• 🧘 Therapy vs control (e.g., CBT vs waitlist)
• 🏥 Procedure A vs B (e.g., robotic vs open surgery)
• 🎯 Dose comparison (e.g., high-dose vs standard-dose)
• 📱 Delivery method (e.g., telehealth vs in-person)

🤖 AI SELF-CHECK after user answers:

• Is intervention too vague? (e.g., "therapy" → specify CBT, IPT, etc.)
• Is intervention too specific? (e.g., "drug X manufactured by company Y batch 2023" → unnecessarily narrow)
• Is this intervention established enough to have studies? (FDA-approved drugs → yes; experimental → maybe)

Instant Red Flag Check (NEW):

❌ STOP if:

• Intervention is a specific brand name and user wants only that brand (too narrow)
• Intervention is extremely new (FDA approved <1 year ago, unlikely to have RCTs)
• Intervention is obsolete (no longer used in practice → studies exist but not clinically relevant)

If detected, immediately warn:

🚨 Red flag: [Intervention] is [too new/too specific/obsolete]. This might severely limit available studies or clinical relevance. Let me suggest alternatives...

2C. Comparator (C)

What should we compare it against?

Options:

• 🔵 Placebo/sham (cleanest effect estimate, but ethics may limit availability)
• 🟢 Active comparator (another drug/therapy - more clinically relevant)
• 🟡 Standard of care / Treatment as usual (real-world comparison)
• ⚪ Waitlist control (common in psychotherapy)
• 🔴 No treatment (rare, ethical concerns)

🤖 AI SELF-CHECK after user answers:

• Does this comparator make clinical sense? (e.g., placebo for life-threatening condition → unethical, unlikely to find studies)
• Will there be enough studies with THIS specific comparison? (common comparison → yes; unusual → maybe not)
• Is the comparison fair? (dose X vs dose Y should use same drug, not different drugs)

Heterogeneity Warning (NEW):

If you suspect studies will use different comparators, warn early:

⚠️ Heads-up: Studies on [intervention] often compare against different controls (some use placebo, some use active comparator). This might create heterogeneity. Want to focus on one specific comparison type, or include all?

2D. Outcomes (O)

What outcomes matter most to you?

Think about:

• 🎯 Primary outcome (main thing you want to measure)
  • Mortality / survival
  • Symptom reduction (scales, scores)
  • Disease progression
  • Quality of life
  • Functional status
• 🔍 Secondary outcomes (nice to have)
  • Adverse events / safety
  • Adherence / dropout
  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Subgroup effects

🤖 AI SELF-CHECK after user answers:

• Is primary outcome quantifiable? (e.g., "depression score" → yes; "feeling better" → too vague)
• Is outcome commonly reported? (survival, response rate → yes; rare biomarkers → maybe not)
• Can outcome be pooled across studies? (same measurement tool? or different scales?)

CRITICAL Feasibility Check (NEW):

Ask yourself: "Do studies on [intervention] typically report [outcome]?"

Examples:

• ✅ Drug trials → almost always report adverse events
• ✅ Depression trials → almost always report symptom scales (PHQ, BDI, HAM-D)
• ❌ Old surgical studies → may NOT report QoL (only mortality)
• ❌ Pilot studies → may report feasibility but not clinical outcomes

If outcome might not be reported, warn:

⚠️ Quick reality check: Many studies on [intervention] may not report [outcome]. Let me do a quick search to verify...

Then run WebSearch:

WebSearch: "[intervention] [condition] [outcome] randomized trial"

Check if outcome appears in abstracts. If <30% mention it, flag immediately:

🚨 Concern: My quick search shows only ~X% of studies report [outcome]. You might end up with very few includable studies. Want to add a more commonly reported outcome as alternative?

Phase 3: Early Feasibility Assessment (ENHANCED)

⚠️ DO THIS IMMEDIATELY AFTER PICO IS COMPLETE, BEFORE FINALIZING

This is NOT optional. Run all checks below:

3A. Existing Systematic Reviews

Search #1: Recent reviews

WebSearch: "[intervention] [condition] systematic review meta-analysis 2024 OR 2025 OR 2026"

🤖 AI SELF-CHECK:

• Found recent systematic review (within 2 years)?
  • ✅ Yes, and outdated: Good! You can update it
  • ⚠️ Yes, and recent (<1 year): Uh-oh, may be redundant. Check if you can add new angle (subgroup, new outcome)
  • ✅ No recent review: Great! Clear need for new synthesis

If recent review exists, present to user:

📚 I found a systematic review published [date] titled "[title]".

Options:

1. Update this review (add new studies published since)
2. Focus on a subgroup they didn't analyze (e.g., only elderly patients)
3. Add new outcome they didn't include
4. Different comparison they didn't examine

Which appeals to you?

Search #2: Cochrane Library (gold standard)

WebSearch: "cochrane review [intervention] [condition]"

• Cochrane review exists and recent (<3 years)? → Probably don't compete, find different angle
• Cochrane review outdated (>3 years)? → Updating is valuable
• No Cochrane review? → Green light!

3B. Study Volume Estimation

Search #3: RCT count

WebSearch: "[intervention] [population] [outcome] randomized controlled trial"

🤖 AI SELF-CHECK:

• How many results mentioned in search snippet?
  • ✅ 10+ RCTs mentioned: Excellent, proceed
  • ⚠️ 5-9 RCTs: Marginal, doable but small
  • ❌ <5 RCTs: Too few, STOP or revise PICO

Alternative: PubMed Clinical Queries (more accurate)

If you have access, suggest user run:

PubMed Clinical Queries:
([intervention] AND [condition] AND [outcome]) AND (randomized controlled trial[pt])
Filter: Therapy/Narrow

Report findings:

🔍 Feasibility snapshot:

• Estimated RCTs: ~[X] studies
• Most recent: [year]
• Assessment: ✅ Sufficient / ⚠️ Marginal / ❌ Too few

[If marginal/too few]: Want to broaden the PICO to capture more studies?

3C. Heterogeneity Risk Assessment (NEW)

🤖 AI MENTAL CHECK: Based on PICO, assess heterogeneity risk:

Low risk ✅ (proceed confidently):

• Same drug class, same dose range
• Same population (e.g., all adults with MDD)
• Same outcome measurement (e.g., all use HAM-D scale)

Moderate risk ⚠️ (flag to user):

• Different drugs within same class (e.g., various SSRIs)
• Mixed populations (e.g., adults + elderly)
• Different scales measuring same construct (e.g., BDI vs HAM-D vs PHQ-9)

High risk ❌ (warn strongly):

• Different interventions entirely (e.g., drug + therapy mixed)
• Vastly different populations (e.g., pediatric + adult + elderly)
• Incompatible outcomes (e.g., some report mortality, some report QoL)

If moderate/high risk, warn:

⚠️ Heterogeneity concern: Based on your PICO, studies might compare different [interventions/populations/outcomes], making pooling difficult. You may need subgroup analysis or sensitivity analysis to handle this. Aware of this complexity, or want to narrow PICO?

3D. Data Availability Check (NEW)

🤖 AI MENTAL CHECK: Will studies report extractable data?

Good scenarios ✅:

• Mortality (always binary: dead/alive)
• Response rate (always binary: responded/not)
• Continuous outcomes with standard scales (HAM-D, MMSE, etc.)

Risky scenarios ⚠️:

• Rare outcomes (event rate <5% → need huge sample sizes)
• Composite outcomes (definitions vary across studies)
• Proprietary scales (not widely used, hard to compare)

Bad scenarios ❌:

• Qualitative outcomes only
• "Improvement" without definition
• Outcomes reported as medians (can't pool easily)

If risky/bad, ask user:

🤔 Quick question: Are you comfortable with the possibility that some studies might not report [outcome] in a poolable format? You might need to contact authors for raw data, or exclude some studies. Okay with that?

Phase 4: Refined Topic Presentation (WITH FEASIBILITY REPORT)

After all checks, present structured topic + feasibility summary:

## 🎯 Your Meta-Analysis Topic

**Research Question:**
[Full PICO question in sentence form]

**Population:** [specific group]
**Intervention:** [specific treatment]
**Comparator:** [specific control]
**Outcomes:**
- Primary: [main outcome]
- Secondary: [additional outcomes]

**Study Designs:** RCTs [+ observational if justified]

---

## ✅ Feasibility Assessment (Quick Check)

**Study Volume**: ~[X] RCTs estimated
**Recent Reviews**: [None / Update available / Recent exists]
**Heterogeneity Risk**: ✅ Low / ⚠️ Moderate / ❌ High
**Outcome Reporting**: ✅ Commonly reported / ⚠️ Sometimes / ❌ Rare
**Data Extractability**: ✅ Easy / ⚠️ Moderate / ❌ Difficult

**Recommendation**:
- ✅ **PROCEED** - This looks feasible! [X] studies expected, clear gap identified.
- ⚠️ **PROCEED WITH CAUTION** - [Specific concern]. Plan for [mitigation strategy].
- ❌ **REVISE PICO** - [Fatal flaw]. Suggested changes: [...]

---

**Next Steps**:
1. Run 4-hour formal feasibility assessment (see `ma-topic-intake/references/feasibility-checklist.md`)
2. If GO, proceed to protocol development

Does this capture what you want to study? Any adjustments?

Phase 5: Save to TOPIC.txt (WITH METADATA)

Once confirmed, save enhanced format with feasibility notes:

# Write the finalized topic
cat > projects/<project-name>/TOPIC.txt << 'EOF'
# Meta-Analysis Topic
# Generated: [date]
# Feasibility: [Quick-check passed]

## Research Question
[Full PICO question]

## PICO Elements

**Population**: [detailed]
**Intervention**: [detailed]
**Comparator**: [detailed]
**Outcomes**:
- Primary: [main]
- Secondary: [list]

## Study Design
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
[Include observational if justified: reason]

## Feasibility Notes (from brainstorming)
- Estimated studies: ~[X] RCTs
- Existing reviews: [status]
- Heterogeneity risk: [Low/Moderate/High] - [reason]
- Data concerns: [any warnings]
- Recommended next step: 4-hour formal feasibility assessment

## Analysis Type
[pairwise / nma]
- If NMA: Justification: [≥3 treatments with connected comparisons]

## Search Strategy Notes
- Databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane
- Date range: [suggest based on literature scan]
- Language: English [+ others if justified]

## Potential Challenges
[List any red flags identified during brainstorming]

## Mitigation Strategies
[How to address challenges above]

---
**Status**: Ready for 4-hour feasibility assessment
**Created by**: Brainstorming session [date]
EOF

Then say:

✅ Topic saved to projects/<project-name>/TOPIC.txt

🚦 Next Step (MANDATORY): Run the 4-hour feasibility assessment

This will:

• Validate the quick checks I just did
• Extract data from 3 pilot studies
• Score feasibility (0-16 points)
• Give you a GO/REVISE/STOP decision

Why: This prevents 10-40 hours of wasted work on unanswerable questions.

Ready to start the feasibility assessment now, or want to refine the topic first?

🎓 Knowledge Base for AI Agents

Common Failure Patterns (AVOID THESE)

Red Flags Checklist (Check BEFORE Phase 4)

• PICO too broad? (can't pool diverse studies)
• PICO too narrow? (<5 studies likely)
• Outcome not commonly reported? (will have missing data)
• Recent systematic review exists? (redundant work)
• High heterogeneity expected? (I²>75% likely)
• Data extraction difficulty? (outcome buried in text, not tables)

If ANY red flag = YES, address BEFORE saving TOPIC.txt

📚 Success Examples Library (Offer as Templates)

✅ Example 1: Well-Scoped Topic (GOOD)

Research Question: Are SSRIs more effective than SNRIs for reducing depression symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder?

Why good:

• ✅ Specific intervention classes (not "antidepressants")
• ✅ Clear population (adults with MDD)
• ✅ Quantifiable outcome (depression symptoms on validated scales)
• ✅ Expected studies: 20+ RCTs

Feasibility: HIGH (14/16 points)

✅ Example 2: Updating Existing Review (GOOD)

Research Question: Efficacy of digital CBT vs face-to-face CBT for anxiety disorders: An updated meta-analysis

Why good:

• ✅ Builds on existing review (Cochrane 2021)
• ✅ Clear comparison
• ✅ New studies published since 2021
• ✅ Well-defined outcome (anxiety scales)

Feasibility: HIGH (13/16 points)

⚠️ Example 3: Marginal Topic (Needs Revision)

Research Question: Are probiotics effective for improving gut health in adults?

Why marginal:

• ⚠️ "Probiotics" too vague (many strains)
• ⚠️ "Gut health" not quantifiable
• ⚠️ High heterogeneity expected

Revision needed: → Narrow to: "Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG for reducing IBS symptom severity (IBS-SSS scale) in adults"

Feasibility: After revision: MODERATE (11/16 → 14/16)

❌ Example 4: Unfeasible Topic (STOP)

Research Question: Effectiveness of mindfulness meditation for any mental health condition

Why unfeasible:

• ❌ Too broad ("any mental health condition")
• ❌ Outcome not specified
• ❌ Heterogeneity impossibly high (I²>90% certain)
• ❌ Can't pool studies meaningfully

Recommendation: STOP and choose a specific condition (e.g., depression OR anxiety, not both)

Feasibility: FAIL (4/16 points)

🤖 Self-Prompts for AI Agents (Use Throughout)

After Each PICO Element

Ask yourself:

1. "If I were doing this meta-analysis, would I be confident finding ≥5 studies?"
2. "Can I name 2-3 actual RCTs that fit this PICO right now?"
3. "Is this PICO specific enough to pool, but broad enough to find studies?"

If answer to ANY is "no" → flag to user immediately

Before Presenting Final Topic

Ask yourself:

1. "Have I checked for recent systematic reviews?" (Yes/No)
2. "Have I estimated study count?" (Yes/No)
3. "Have I warned about heterogeneity if applicable?" (Yes/No)
4. "Have I flagged outcome reporting concerns?" (Yes/No)
5. "Would I bet $100 this topic will succeed?" (Yes/No)

If answer to ANY is "no" → go back and fix

When User Pushes Back on Warnings

Your response template:

I understand you're excited about [topic]! My role is to help you succeed, which means being honest about challenges upfront. Here's what I'm concerned about: [specific issue].

Options:

1. Proceed anyway - But let's plan mitigation strategies
2. Revise slightly - [Specific suggestion to address concern]
3. Run quick feasibility check now - 10 min to validate my concern

What feels right to you?

Never: Blindly agree to unfeasible topics. Always: Offer alternatives.

📞 When to Suggest Formal Feasibility Assessment

Trigger these situations:

1. Uncertain about study count - "Let's run the 4-hour assessment to get exact numbers"
2. Moderate heterogeneity risk - "Pilot extraction will show if pooling is feasible"
3. User is risk-averse - "4 hours now saves 10-40 hours later"
4. This is user's first meta-analysis - "Standard practice, prevents wasted effort"
5. Feasibility score borderline (10-12 points) - "Assessment will give definitive answer"

How to pitch it:

🎯 Recommended: Before investing weeks in this project, let's run a 4-hour feasibility assessment. This will:

• Validate my quick checks (study count, heterogeneity)
• Extract data from 3 pilot studies (see if outcome is reported)
• Score feasibility 0-16 (≥12 = GO)
• Save 10-40 hours if topic needs revision

Want to do this now? It's in ma-topic-intake/references/feasibility-checklist.md

🎁 Deliverables at End of Brainstorming

When user says "looks good!", provide:

1. ✅ TOPIC.txt file (saved to projects/<project-name>/TOPIC.txt)
2. ✅ Feasibility quick-check summary (in TOPIC.txt metadata)
3. ✅ Next steps (formal 4-hour assessment)
4. ✅ List of potential challenges (from your checks)
5. ✅ Suggested mitigation strategies

Template response:

🎉 Brainstorming complete!

✅ Saved: projects/<project-name>/TOPIC.txt (includes PICO + feasibility notes)

📋 Quick Feasibility Check:

• Study volume: ~[X] RCTs ✅
• Recent reviews: [status] ✅/⚠️
• Heterogeneity: [Low/Moderate] ✅/⚠️
• Outcome reporting: [Good/Moderate] ✅/⚠️

🚦 Recommendation: [PROCEED / PROCEED WITH CAUTION / REVISE]

⚠️ Potential Challenges:

• [List specific concerns from checks]

🛡️ Mitigation Strategies:

• [How to address each concern]

📍 Next Steps:

1. MANDATORY: Run 4-hour formal feasibility assessment (ma-topic-intake/references/feasibility-checklist.md)
2. If GO: Proceed to protocol development (Stage 01)
3. If REVISE: Come back and we'll adjust PICO
4. If STOP: Choose a different topic (I'll help!)

Ready to start the feasibility assessment now? Or want to refine anything first?

🔄 Iterative Refinement (When User Says "Not Quite Right")

If user isn't satisfied with the topic:

1. Ask specifically: "What feels off? [Population / Intervention / Comparator / Outcome / Scope]?"
2. Offer 2-3 alternatives based on their answer
3. Re-run feasibility checks for each alternative
4. Let user choose the most appealing option

Example:

Okay, let's adjust! Which element feels off?

A. Population too narrow/broad

• Narrower: [example]
• Broader: [example]

B. Intervention not quite right

• Alternative 1: [example]
• Alternative 2: [example]

C. Outcome not what you want

• Instead of [X], try [Y]?

D. Comparison not ideal

• Switch to [alternative comparator]?

Tell me which letter + option, and I'll revise!

🎯 Success Metrics (For This Skill)

You've succeeded when:

• ✅ User has a feasible topic (not just any topic)
• ✅ Quick feasibility checks completed (study count, reviews, heterogeneity)
• ✅ User understands next steps (4-hour assessment)
• ✅ Potential challenges flagged early (not discovered later)
• ✅ TOPIC.txt saved with metadata (not just PICO alone)

You've failed when:

• ❌ User starts extraction, then discovers <3 studies exist
• ❌ User discovers later that outcome isn't reported
• ❌ High heterogeneity makes pooling impossible (should've warned)
• ❌ Recent review makes work redundant (should've checked)

Measure: 4-hour feasibility assessment should pass ≥80% of the time for topics you help create. If not, you're being too lenient.

📖 Additional Resources for Users

When user asks "How do I do X?":

Version: 2.0 (Enhanced) Date: 2026-02-17 Changes from v1.0:

• Added Phase 0 (pre-assessment)
• Added instant feasibility checks after each PICO element
• Added heterogeneity risk assessment
• Added data availability checks
• Added AI self-check prompts throughout
• Added success examples library
• Added TOPIC.txt metadata (not just PICO)
• Added formal handoff to 4-hour assessment
• Added failure patterns and prevention strategies