radiology-grant

name

radiology-grant

description

Reframe and polish imaging-AI / radiomics / radiogenomics research as a research grant proposal — convert paper-style "we built a model" into grant logic (clinical need → scientific question → hypothesis → specific aims/研究内容 → technical route/技术路线 → innovation/创新点 → feasibility/可行性 → expected outcomes), and strengthen title, abstract, background/立项依据, aims, key scientific question/关键科学问题, and significance. Primary and most-developed track is NSFC (国家自然科学基金: 青年/面上/地区) and provincial funds (省自然); also covers reframing the same proposal for international funders (NIH R01, ERC Starting/Consolidator/Advanced, Wellcome Trust) including realistic eligibility for China-based applicants and cross-border routes (NSFC international collaboration line, RGC, MSCA, foundations). Use when the user mentions 国自然/省自然/基金申请/标书/立项依据/科学问题/技术路线/创新点/可行性, NIH/R01/ERC/Wellcome/国际基金, or wants to turn a study into a fundable proposal for any of these. Flags weak innovation, thin preliminary data, open-loop technical routes, over-promising, and funder-eligibility mismatches. Reminds the author to verify the current official guidelines; never fabricates preliminary results, citations, or eligibility.

Research Grant Proposals (国自然 / 省自然 / institutional / international)

Use this skill to turn an imaging-research idea or finished study into a fundable proposal. A grant is not a paper: reviewers fund a scientific question and a credible plan to answer it, not a model. This skill rebuilds the logic and polishes each section to the structure funders expect. NSFC/省自然 is the primary, most fully worked-out track; the same reframing logic extends to international funders (NIH, ERC, Wellcome) when the team is also pursuing cross-border funding — see references/international-grants.md.

Core stance

• Grant logic, not paper logic. Lead with the clinical need and the scientific question, then hypothesis → aims → technical route → innovation → feasibility → expected outcomes. "Construct a model / improve accuracy" is an engineering task, not a science question — reframe it into the mechanism or generalisable principle being tested.
• Eligibility before drafting, for any international target. Confirm the author/institution can actually apply as lead PI before writing a word — NIH, ERC, and Wellcome each have real, currently-changing eligibility constraints that are easy to miss (→ references/international-grants.md). Wasting effort on an inaccessible mechanism is worse than a hard "not this track."
• The key scientific question (关键科学问题) is the spine. One sharp, answerable question that the aims serve. If the aims don't all serve it, the proposal is unfocused.
• Close the loop. The technical route (技术路线) must connect need → question → each aim → method → expected result → back to the question. Reviewers reject open-loop routes.
• Innovation must be specific and defensible. Name the increment (question / data / method / validation / mechanism). Avoid "first/领先" without grounding.
• Feasibility is shown, not asserted. Preliminary data, team capability, data access, and ethics make it credible — never fabricate preliminary results.
• Don't over-promise. Aims must be achievable in the period and budget; over-scoping reads as naïveté.
• Verify the current guidelines. Word limits, format, attachments, ethics, and 限项 rules change yearly — confirm against the current official 申报指南 (the author must check; this skill flags it, it does not have the current year's rules memorised).

When to use

• "把我的研究改写成国自然/省自然标书 / 帮我写立项依据、科学问题、技术路线、创新点。"
• "Turn this finished study into a grant proposal."
• "Is my innovation point / feasibility strong enough? polish my aims."
• "Reframe 'build a model' into a fundable scientific question."
• "我们也想申请 NIH / ERC / Wellcome，能不能用同一份研究改写？" / "Can this also become an NIH R01 / ERC / Wellcome proposal, and am I even eligible to apply?"

When to open extra files

File	Open when
references/grant-architecture.md	The section-by-section structure and what each must accomplish (NSFC/provincial)
references/reframe-and-innovation.md	Converting paper/engineering framing into a scientific question + a defensible innovation point
references/feasibility-and-pitfalls.md	Showing feasibility (preliminary data, route closure, team/data/ethics) and the common rejection reasons
references/international-grants.md	Target is also/instead NIH, ERC, or Wellcome — eligibility reality for China-based applicants, section-mapping from NSFC structure, and more directly reachable cross-border routes

Workflow

0. Identify the target funder(s) — NSFC/省自然 (default), and/or NIH/ERC/Wellcome/other international. For any international target, check eligibility first (international-grants.md) before investing drafting effort.
1. Extract the science. From the idea/study, find the clinical need and the one scientific question worth funding (reframe engineering goals into mechanism/generalisable principle). This is funder-independent — do it once, reuse for every target.
2. Set the architecture (grant-architecture.md for NSFC/provincial; international-grants.md for the funder-specific section mapping) — title, abstract, 立项依据, 研究目标, 研究内容 (aims), 关键科学问题, 技术路线, 创新点, 可行性, 预期成果, plan.
3. Build aims that serve the question — each aim a testable sub-question with a method and an expected result; aims are coherent, not a feature list.
4. Forge the innovation point (reframe-and-innovation.md) — specific, defensible, tied to the gap; classify the kind of innovation.
5. Close the technical route — a loop diagram in prose: need → question → aims → methods → expected results → question; mark validation and risk mitigations.
6. Evidence feasibility (feasibility-and-pitfalls.md) — preliminary data (real only), team, data access, ethics; pre-empt the common rejection reasons.
7. Polish & guideline-check — tighten each section; flag every place the author must verify the current official 申报指南 (limits, format, 限项, ethics).

Output contract

0. Target funder(s) & eligibility (only when international) — funder, whether the author/institution can be lead PI under current rules, and the realistic route if not (co-PI, alternate mechanism) — before any section drafting.
1. Scientific question — the one fundable question + hypothesis.
2. Section drafts — title, abstract, 立项依据, 研究目标/内容, 关键科学问题, 技术路线, 创新点, 可行性, 预期成果 — drafted or restructured.
3. Innovation point — specific, classified, defensible.
4. Technical-route check — is the loop closed? gaps marked.
5. Feasibility & risk — what supports feasibility; risks + mitigations.
6. Weaknesses & fixes — thin innovation, weak preliminary data, over-scoping, open loop.
7. 待核验（中文） — current-guideline items the author must confirm (字数/格式/附件/伦理/限项).

Quality bar

A good proposal makes a reviewer see one sharp scientific question, aims that all serve it, a closed technical route, a specific innovation, and credible feasibility — written to the funder's structure, with no fabricated preliminary data and an explicit reminder to verify the current year's guidelines.

Handoffs

• Study/validation design behind an aim → radiology-design.
• Frontier framing & evidence for the gap → radiology-frontier (verify live → radiology-search).
• Statistics/sample-size for an aim → radiology-stats.
• Ethics/feasibility of data → radiology-ethics / radiology-data.
• English polish of an English-language proposal → radiology-polishing.
• Verifying current call deadlines, page limits, and funder eligibility rules live → radiology-search.
• This skill drafts and critiques proposals; it does not guarantee funding, does not confirm eligibility on the author's behalf, and does not replace the current official 申报指南 or the target institution's sponsored-programs/grants office.