Medical Proposal Rescue
Structure medical proposals and research designs
Medical Proposal Rescue
Structure medical proposals and research designs
Showcase
Description
Designed for master's, doctoral, and resident physicians in medicine, nursing, and public health facing urgent proposal deadlines. Triggered when users ask how to write a medical proposal, recover from a rejected clinical topic, structure a literature review, calculate sample sizes, pass ethics reviews, handle clinical registration, or resolve mentor alignment issues. It uses the Four-Pillars Method (Problem, Literature, Methodology, Innovation) along with medical-specific additions (IRB ethics, clinical registration, accessibility, and statistical design) to generate a proposal skeleton, ethics and registration checklist, and statistical design table. Version 1.0.0. - **Pain Points**: Struggling to write a proposal despite having a direction, or facing rejection over ethics, registration, or sample size. - **Method**: The Four-Pillars Method combined with dual prerequisites (IRB ethics and ChiCTR clinical registration) to build a solid proposal skeleton. - **Deliverables**: A three-part package including a proposal skeleton, an ethics and registration checklist, and a statistical design key points table.
Recommended by
Dancang
Why we love this skill
Tailored for medical, nursing, and public health proposals, this skill uses the four pillars of research to build a solid framework while checking ethics, registration, and sample size to prevent proposal rejection.
Related Skills
View all
Education Proposal Four-Pillar Framework
An emergency proposal assistance skill for education graduate students and young researchers, using the vertical Four-Pillar Proposal Method. Triggers when users ask how to write an education thesis proposal, how to design education research, what to do if a proposal is rejected, how to structure a literature review, how to formulate research questions, or how to handle advisor misalignment. Uses the Four-Pillar Method (Problem Pillar / Literature Pillar / Methodology Pillar / Innovation Pillar) to generate a proposal skeleton, a literature search strategy table, and a rejection risk checklist. Version 1.0.0. * **One-Sentence Positioning** Your personal proposal skeleton generator: turns loose directions, piled-up literature, mismatched methods, and empty innovation points into four solid pillars—problem, literature, methodology, and innovation—plus advisor alignment checks, making your proposal robust rather than a word count exercise. **How to Use - The Four-Pillar Method** 1. Problem Pillar: Three cuts to narrow the direction (lock the target / set the perspective / draw boundaries), with main and sub-questions ready to use. 2. Literature Pillar: Avoid piling up; build a map by context, school of thought, debate, or gap to pinpoint your research gap. 3. Methodology Pillar: Match quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods by disciplinary paradigm, including red flags like IRB prerequisites. 4. Innovation Pillar: Choose one from theory, perspective, method, or target, grounding it in how it differs from existing work. 5. Closing: Advisor alignment check to connect your lens back to your advisor's framework, preventing rejections due to drifting off course. **What You Receive** A proposal skeleton (four pillars filled out cell by cell), a literature search strategy table (databases + keywords + tracing), and a rejection risk checklist (top 8 reasons + avoidance tips), ready to be expanded into a full proposal. **Compliance Disclaimer** This skill does not ghostwrite complete proposals or papers; it only generates frameworks and checklists. It does not fabricate literature or data, clearly labels AI generation, requires original literature verification, does not guarantee approval, prioritizes offline confirmation for ethics reviews and advisor conflicts, and defers to institutional formats and advisor opinions.
WriteSocial Science Grant Application Framework
Designed for young faculty in humanities and social sciences, this Skill uses the Four Pillars method to help build grant application frameworks and material checklists. It triggers when you need help with application strategies, literature reviews, research gaps, weak foundation handling, innovation points, blind review preparation, or restriction checks. By organizing your application into four solid pillars—foundation, content, background, and feasibility—plus restriction and anonymization checks, it turns a scattered draft into a robust proposal. Version 1.0.0. Your personal grant application framework generator: transforms weak literature reviews, unorganized content, thin preliminary records, vague innovation claims, and compliance risks into four sturdy pillars, ensuring your application stands strong. How to Use the Four Pillars Method: 1. Foundation Pillar: Ground your opening in top-level policies and build a four-part literature review to locate your research gap; 2. Content Pillar: Establish a clear objective-framework-difficulty logic chain where each section addresses your gap; 3. Background Pillar: Expand limited preliminary achievements honestly across four methods without falsification; 4. Feasibility Pillar: Select from four innovation angles and apply quantitative expected outcome templates; 5. Review Check: Self-check for grant restrictions and anonymization compliance. What You Receive: An application skeleton filled across the four pillars, a preliminary research checklist for limited backgrounds, and a literature dynamics table with gap identification and reference outlines, forming a three-piece toolkit for your proposal. Compliance Notice: This Skill does not write full proposals but generates frameworks and checklists. Falsification of preliminary results, unauthorized names, or fabricated data is strictly prohibited. AI usage should be noted, and all literature and preliminary results must be verified individually. Approval is not guaranteed. Prioritize compliance with your research office and mentor guidelines, and follow your institution's template.
Proposal Readiness Checker
Before you spend dozens of hours writing your thesis, take ten minutes to run a structured checkup. This skill does only one thing: It diagnoses, not writes. It tells you whether your topic can hold up, whether your materials are sufficient, what's missing, where to fill the gaps, and in what order. Then it gives you an actionable missing-material checklist and search queries. It will not write your introduction, literature review, methods, or discussion. Four steps: 1. Discipline diagnosis: Classify your work into 1A Humanities/Arts, 1B Social Sciences, 2A Science/Engineering, or 2B Agriculture/Medicine/Life Sciences, and load the corresponding regulatory red lines; 2B triggers a mandatory ethics review block. 2. Topic checkup: Examine the topic from three dimensions—momentum, shape, and wording—to judge whether the research unit can be operationalized, whether the research question can be answered, and whether the topic has been done to death. 3. Material checkup: Register your existing literature into an M1/M2… material library, verify each entry against the four elements (author/year/title/verifiable locator), and compute the true coverage rate. 4. Gap list and search queries: Specify how many papers of what type are missing and which piece of evidence is lacking, and provide search queries ready to paste into databases (including Boolean keyword combinations, time ranges, and screening criteria). When to use it (trigger phrases): "Help me check my proposal" "Can this topic work?" "Do I have enough literature?" "My proposal was sent back" "I want to confirm before starting to write" — for graduate students who have just set a direction but haven't started writing; for those whose proposal was rejected but don't know why; for those with a pile of literature but unsure if it's enough to begin; for those wanting to confirm whether the topic is worth the investment before committing fully. Deliverables: A Proposal Checkup Report document + a Five-Source Readiness Scorecard (each level has behavioral criteria, not vague scoring) + a prioritized list of missing materials + search queries + an archive code. The archive code is compatible with the Academic Paper Full-Process Writing System v4.0; after the checkup, paste it there to continue writing without re-stating your discipline, topic, or journal. What this skill explicitly does not do: It does not write the main text, generate reference lists, or fabricate authors, years, volumes, issues, pages, or DOIs. Any literature found via online search is flagged with ⚠️ "needs verification" and must be verified by you before use. This skill does not promise any acceptance or passing outcome.
Information
- Version
- v3
- Last updated
- Runtime credits
- Usage-based
- Models
- Auto
