ahrq-picme-assessment · diff
v1.0.0 to v1.0.0
24 added, 23 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: ahrq-picme-assessment
- description: 'SOP: 使用 AHRQ PiCMe 框架对研究 gap 进行 6 维度系统评估'
+ description: 'SOP: Use the AHRQ PiCMe framework to systematically assess a research gap across 6 dimensions'
version: 1.0.0
category: hypothesis-formation
type: sop
campaign: gap-prioritization
- input: GapRecord — 单条标准化 gap 记录
- output: PiCMeAssessment — 6 维度独立评分、综合判定及研究问题草稿
+ input: GapRecord — a single standardized gap record
+ output: PiCMeAssessment — independent scores across 6 dimensions, overall verdict, and research question draft
dependencies:
skills:
- subagent-spawning
---
# AHRQ PiCMe Assessment
- 使用 AHRQ PiCMe 框架对研究 gap 进行 6 维度系统评估。
+ Use the AHRQ PiCMe framework to systematically assess a research gap across 6 dimensions.
## HARD-GATE
<HARD-GATE>
- - 输入必须是 status: "complete" 的 GapRecord
- - 6 个维度（P/I/C/M/E + 综合判定）必须全部完成，不得跳过
- - 每个维度必须有独立评分（1-5）和文字说明
- - overall_verdict 必须为 "strong" | "moderate" | "weak" 之一
+ - Input must be a GapRecord with status: "complete"
+ - All 6 dimensions (P/I/C/M/E + overall verdict) must be completed; none may be skipped
+ - Each dimension must have an independent score (1-5) and a textual rationale
+ - overall_verdict must be one of "strong" | "moderate" | "weak"
</HARD-GATE>
## Pipeline
- 1. **前置检查**: 验证输入 GapRecord 完整性；确认 domain 字段有效
- 2. **Population (P)**: 明确该 gap 涉及的目标人群/系统/数据集；评估定义清晰度（1-5）
- 3. **Intervention (I)**: 明确拟议的干预/方法/解决方案；评估可操作性（1-5）
- 4. **Comparator (C)**: 明确对比基线（现有 SOTA、无干预、替代方案）；评估基线合理性（1-5）
- 5. **Metrics (M)**: 明确评估指标；评估指标的可测量性和相关性（1-5）
- 6. **Evidence (E)**: 评估现有证据对该 gap 存在性的支持强度（1-5）
- 7. **综合判定**: 基于 5 维度均值判定整体质量（strong ≥ 3.5 / moderate 2.5-3.4 / weak < 2.5）；生成研究问题草稿
- 8. **输出**: 返回 PiCMeAssessment 对象
+ 1. **Precondition check**: verify completeness of the input GapRecord; confirm the domain field is valid
+ 2. **Population (P)**: identify the target population/system/dataset the gap concerns; assess clarity of definition (1-5)
+ 3. **Intervention (I)**: identify the proposed intervention/method/solution; assess operationalizability (1-5)
+ 4. **Comparator (C)**: identify the comparison baseline (existing SOTA, no intervention, alternative approach); assess baseline reasonableness (1-5)
+ 5. **Metrics (M)**: identify the evaluation metrics; assess their measurability and relevance (1-5)
+ 6. **Evidence (E)**: assess the strength of existing evidence supporting the existence of the gap (1-5)
+ 7. **Overall verdict**: judge overall quality from the mean of the 5 dimensions (strong ≥ 3.5 / moderate 2.5-3.4 / weak < 2.5); generate a research question draft
+ 8. **Output**: return the PiCMeAssessment object
## Output Format
```json
{
"gap_id": "gap_001",
"dimensions": {
- "population": { "score": 4, "description": "目标人群描述", "rationale": "..." },
- "intervention": { "score": 3, "description": "干预/方法描述", "rationale": "..." },
- "comparator": { "score": 3, "description": "对比基线描述", "rationale": "..." },
- "metrics": { "score": 4, "description": "评估指标描述", "rationale": "..." },
- "evidence": { "score": 4, "description": "证据强度描述", "rationale": "..." }
+ "population": { "score": 4, "description": "Target population description", "rationale": "..." },
+ "intervention": { "score": 3, "description": "Intervention/method description", "rationale": "..." },
+ "comparator": { "score": 3, "description": "Comparison baseline description", "rationale": "..." },
+ "metrics": { "score": 4, "description": "Evaluation metric description", "rationale": "..." },
+ "evidence": { "score": 4, "description": "Evidence strength description", "rationale": "..." }
},
"mean_score": 3.6,
"overall_verdict": "strong",
- "research_question_draft": "研究问题草稿（1句）",
- "improvement_suggestions": ["建议1", "建议2"]
+ "research_question_draft": "Research question draft (1 sentence)",
+ "improvement_suggestions": ["Suggestion 1", "Suggestion 2"]
}
```
+ </output>