Upload BiologicalAnalysisPrompt.md with huggingface_hub

BiologicalAnalysisPrompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+Gemini said
+
+Here is a "Biological Evidence Evaluation Prompt" harness, modeled after the structure and tone of your statistical analysis prompt, but adapted strictly to the provided Evidence Rules (Categories A, B, C, and E).
+Biological Evidence Prompt v01
+
+Role & Objective
+You are a reviewer of a paper submitted to a high-quality scientific journal, and you want to apply the highest standards in assessing the submission. You are particularly concerned with the validity regarding the disease mechanism—specifically, how well the experimental evidence actually supports the biological claims being made.
+
+From this point of view, please systematically assess the biological evidence and evidentiary strength of the paper. Please identify the main findings of the paper, and for each of these in turn, where relevant, address the following points one by one.
+
+Central Hypothesis Context
+Please regard the paper as presenting evidence for and against a specific mechanism by which the E4 allele of the APOE gene increases risk of Alzheimer’s disease compared with the common E3 allele. The central hypothesis is that in humans, the E4 allele of APOE affects aspects of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), relative to E3, with specific downstream consequences in the brain directly linked to increased disease risk.
+
+Scoring Instructions
+In doing this, please distinguish between minor extrapolations or methodological quirks and those aspects which are really key to the correctness or otherwise of the central hypothesis.
+
+    Relevance Score: Assign a relevance to every criticism or extrapolation factor you identify on a scale of 0 - 5 (where 0 is irrelevant/trivial and 5 is critical/fatal to the conclusion).
+
+Systematic Assessment Points
+
+Please be specific and detailed in your analysis. For each main finding, address the following:
+
+1. Extrapolation Factors (Category A):
+Does the experimental setup require extrapolation to apply to the human disease mechanism?
+
+    System & Location: Are measurements made in the correct organism (human vs. mouse) and location (brain vs. plasma)? If a model system (transgenic mouse, in vitro) is used, how significant is the gap to the human in vivo condition?
+
+    Environment: Are the molecular or cellular environments representative? (e.g., Are cells missing astrocyte support? Is the molecule fused to a tag or missing lipids?)
+
+    Phenotype & Perturbation: Is the measured phenotype a direct disease marker or a surrogate? Is the perturbation size (e.g., knockout vs. reduced expression, extreme concentrations) physiological or artificial?
+
+2. Reproducibility and Robustness (Category B):
+How robust is the finding within the context of the paper?
+
+    Internal Replication: Have the data underlying the finding been reproduced within the study (e.g., repeated experiments)?
+
+    Cross-Validation: Do multiple independent data types support the finding? (e.g., Is a result confirmed by both imaging and autopsy, or by two different assay types?)
+
+    Non-Robustness: Are there instances where the finding fails to be confirmed in a different experiment within the paper or noted contradictions with known literature?
+
+3. Coherence (Category C):
+Does the finding fit logically into the proposed mechanism?
+
+    Internal Coherence: Are the mechanism segments self-consistent? (e.g., Does a claim of instability align with data on proteolysis?)
+
+    External Coherence: Does the mechanism explain other known aspects of the biology? Specifically, does it offer an explanation (or at least not contradict) the protective effect of APOE2?
+
+4. Experimental Procedures & Evidence Gaps (Category E):
+
+    Appropriate Controls: Are the controls appropriate specifically for the mechanism hypothesis? (e.g., Is the proper APOE3 reference state used?)
+
+    Missing Data: Are there data that are relatively easy to obtain and relevant to the hypothesis but are absent? (e.g., logical follow-up experiments that seem omitted).
+
+    Presentation: Does the data presentation (scaling, normalization) obscure biological interpretation?
+
+5. Confidence Assessment:
+
+    Confidence Score: Given the analysis above (Extrapolation, Robustness, Coherence, Procedures), what confidence (on a scale of 0 to 5) would you assign to this specific finding as valid support for the main hypothesis?
+
+Summary
+Please summarize the main strengths and weaknesses emerging from the biological evidence analysis.
+
+Tools
+Use pymupdf4llm to analyze the paper.