Results Interpreter

Results Interpreter

Analyzes data files and interprets figures to generate structured notes and draft the Results section with proper statistical reporting.

Critical Principle: No Silent Assumptions

NEVER make assumptions about data without user confirmation.

When encountering ambiguity, STOP and ask the user before proceeding. It is better to ask too many questions than to misinterpret data. The user's research depends on accurate interpretation.

When to Pause and Ask

ALWAYS ask the user when you encounter:

1. Unclear column meanings

   • Column names are abbreviated or cryptic (e.g., "grp1", "val_a", "x1")
   • Units are not specified (is this mm, cm, seconds, days?)
   • Multiple possible interpretations exist

2. Ambiguous group definitions

   • What does "Group A" vs "Group B" represent?
   • Which group is the control/reference?
   • Are these treatment arms, time points, or subpopulations?

3. Uncertain statistical context

   • P-values without knowing which test was used
   • Effect sizes without knowing the direction expected
   • Multiple comparison situations unclear

4. Data-scope mismatch

   • Data doesn't match what scope.md described
   • Fewer/more variables than expected
   • Sample sizes don't align with expectations

5. Figure interpretation uncertainty

   • Axes labels are unclear or missing
   • Color coding isn't explained
   • Statistical annotations are ambiguous (*, **, ***)

6. Missing context

   • Primary vs secondary outcomes unclear
   • Exclusion criteria not evident from data
   • Time points or visit structure unknown

How to Ask Clarifying Questions

Format questions clearly with context:

I need clarification before interpreting the data:

**File**: results.csv
**Issue**: Column "grp" contains values 0 and 1, but I'm unsure what these represent.

**Question**: What do the group values mean?
- 0 = [?]
- 1 = [?]
- Which is the reference/control group?

**Why this matters**: This determines how I report the direction of effects (e.g., "Group A was higher than Group B" vs the reverse).

Log All Assumptions

If the user confirms an interpretation, document it in notes/data-analysis.md:

## Clarifications Received

| Question | User Response | Date |
|----------|---------------|------|
| What does grp=0 mean? | Control group (no treatment) | [date] |
| Units for "time" column? | Days since enrollment | [date] |

Prerequisites

• scope.md must exist
• notes/code-analysis.md should exist (provides context on what analyses were run)
• notes/ethics-summary.md may exist (provides expected sample size, endpoints for validation)
• notes/ethics-scope-comparison.md may exist (explains any scope differences)
• data/ folder with CSV/Excel files
• figures/ folder with PNG/JPG images

Workflow

[Read scope.md, code-analysis.md, and notes/ethics-summary.md]
     │
     ▼
[Inventory Data Files] ─── List all CSVs and columns
     │
     ▼
[CHECKPOINT: Ask Clarifying Questions] ─── STOP if any ambiguity
     │                                       └── Document responses
     ▼
[Validate Against Ethics Docs] ─── Check sample size, endpoints match expectations
     │
     ▼
[Analyze Data Files] ─── Parse CSVs, extract statistics
     │
     ▼
[Interpret Figures] ─── View and describe each figure
     │
     ▼
[CHECKPOINT: Verify Interpretations] ─── Confirm with user
     │
     ▼
[Cross-Reference] ─── Match data to figures to findings
     │
     ▼
[Generate notes/data-analysis.md]
     │
     ▼
[STATISTICAL REVIEW] ─── Validate statistical reporting
     │                     └── agents/statistical-reviewer.md
     ▼
[Draft Results] ─── drafts/results.md (with statistical sign-off)

Step 1: Read Context

From scope.md:

• Key findings (what results are expected)
• Research question (what to emphasize)

From notes/code-analysis.md:

• Statistical tests used (how to interpret p-values)
• Variables analyzed (what columns to look for)

Step 2: Analyze Data Files

2a. Inventory Data Files

ls -la data/*.csv data/*.xlsx 2>/dev/null

2b. Initial Data Scan

For each data file, perform an initial scan WITHOUT interpretation:

import pandas as pd
df = pd.read_csv('data/results.csv')
print("Shape:", df.shape)
print("Columns:", df.columns.tolist())
print("Sample values per column:")
for col in df.columns:
    print(f"  {col}: {df[col].unique()[:5]}")

Step 3: CHECKPOINT — Clarifying Questions

STOP HERE if there is ANY ambiguity.

Before interpreting any data, present findings to the user and ask clarifying questions.

Required Clarification Template

Present this to the user:

## Data Clarification Needed

I've scanned your data files. Before interpreting, I need to confirm my understanding.

### Files Found

| File | Rows | Columns |
|------|------|---------|
| results.csv | 156 | 12 |
| demographics.csv | 156 | 8 |

### Questions About: results.csv

**Columns I understand:**
- `patient_id` — unique identifier
- `age` — patient age (years, I assume?)

**Columns I need clarification on:**

1. **Column: `grp`** (values: 0, 1)
   - What do these values represent?
   - Which is the control/reference group?

2. **Column: `outcome_val`**
   - What does this measure?
   - What are the units?
   - Is higher better or worse?

3. **Column: `p_val`**
   - Which statistical test produced these p-values?
   - Were these corrected for multiple comparisons?

### Questions About: Figures

1. **figure1.png** — appears to be a box plot
   - What groups are being compared?
   - What's on the y-axis?

### Questions About: Overall Analysis

1. Which finding is the PRIMARY outcome for this paper?
2. Are there any data points I should exclude (e.g., outliers, failed QC)?
3. Is there anything unusual about this dataset I should know?

**Please answer these questions before I proceed with interpretation.**

Wait for User Response

Do NOT proceed until the user has answered ALL clarifying questions.

If the user says "just figure it out" or similar, respond:

"I want to make sure I interpret your data correctly. Making assumptions could lead to errors in the manuscript that might be difficult to catch later. Could you please clarify [specific question]?"

Document All Clarifications

After receiving answers, record them:

## Clarifications Log

**File**: results.csv
**Date**: [timestamp]

| Item | Question | User Response |
|------|----------|---------------|
| grp column | What do 0 and 1 mean? | 0 = control, 1 = treatment |
| grp column | Which is reference? | 0 (control) is reference |
| outcome_val | What does it measure? | Tumor volume in mm³ |
| outcome_val | Higher = better/worse? | Lower is better (tumor shrinkage) |
| p_val | Which test? | Mann-Whitney U, not corrected |
| figure1.png | What's compared? | Treatment vs control tumor volume |
| Primary outcome | Which is primary? | Tumor volume change at week 8 |

Step 3b: Validate Against Ethics Docs (If Ethics Docs Exist)

Skip this step if notes/ethics-summary.md does not exist.

After clarifying data questions, validate that the actual results align with ethics document expectations.

Ethics Validation Checklist

## Ethics Document Results Validation

**Ethics Document**: [from ethics-summary.md]
**Scope Comparison**: [from ethics-scope-comparison.md]

### Sample Size Check

| Aspect | Expected | Actual Data | Status |
|--------|----------|-------------|--------|
| Total N | [from ethics doc] | [from data] | ✓/✗ |
| Control group | [from ethics doc] | [from data] | ✓/✗ |
| Treatment group | [from ethics doc] | [from data] | ✓/✗ |

**If actual < expected**: Reference ethics-scope-comparison.md for explanation
**If actual > expected**: Unusual - ask user for clarification

### Endpoints Check

| Approved Endpoint | Present in Data? | Column Name | Notes |
|-------------------|------------------|-------------|-------|
| [primary endpoint] | ✓/✗ | [column] | |
| [secondary endpoint 1] | ✓/✗ | [column] | |
| [secondary endpoint 2] | ✓/✗ | [column] | |

**Missing endpoints**: Check ethics-scope-comparison.md - may be intentionally out of scope
**Extra endpoints**: Exploratory analyses - note as such in Results

If Significant Discrepancies

If you find discrepancies NOT explained by notes/ethics-scope-comparison.md:

I found a discrepancy between expected and actual data:

**Expected Sample Size**: N = 500
**Actual Data**: N = 312

This wasn't documented in the scope comparison.
Could you explain this difference? (e.g., enrollment ongoing, exclusions, data subset)

Document all validations in notes/data-analysis.md.

Step 4: Analyze Data Files (Post-Clarification)

Only proceed after Steps 3 and 3b are complete.

4a. Parse Each Data File

For each CSV:

import pandas as pd
df = pd.read_csv('data/results.csv')
print(df.shape)
print(df.columns.tolist())
print(df.describe())
print(df.head())

4b. Identify Result Types

Scan columns for statistical output patterns:

4c. Extract Key Statistics

For each data file, extract:

Demographics/Baseline (if present):

• Sample sizes per group
• Age, sex distributions
• Key baseline characteristics

Primary Outcomes:

• Main comparison statistics
• Effect sizes
• P-values and CIs

Secondary Outcomes:

• Supporting statistics
• Subgroup analyses

Step 5: Interpret Figures

5a. View Each Figure

ls figures/*.png figures/*.jpg figures/*.svg

For each figure, examine the image and identify:

5b. Figure Type Recognition

5c. Match Figures to Data

Cross-reference figures with data files:

• Which CSV produced which figure?
• Do the statistics match?
• Any discrepancies to flag?

Step 6: CHECKPOINT — Verify Interpretations

Before finalizing, present your interpretation to the user for verification.

Interpretation Summary for User Review

## Please Verify My Interpretation

Before I write the Results section, please confirm these interpretations are correct:

### Primary Finding

I interpret the primary finding as:
> "[Treatment group] showed [direction] [outcome] compared to [control]
> ([statistic] vs [statistic], p = [value])"

**Is this correct?** [Yes / No / Needs adjustment]

### Secondary Findings

1. [Secondary finding interpretation]
2. [Secondary finding interpretation]

**Are these correct?** [Yes / No / Needs adjustment]

### Figure Interpretations

| Figure | My Interpretation | Correct? |
|--------|-------------------|----------|
| Figure 1 | Shows [description] | [ ] |
| Figure 2 | Shows [description] | [ ] |

### Sample Sizes

- Total analyzed: [n]
- Group A: [n]
- Group B: [n]
- Excluded: [n]

**Do these match your expectations?** [Yes / No]

### Anything I Missed?

Is there anything important about these results that I haven't captured?

If User Identifies Errors

If the user corrects any interpretation:

1. Thank them for the correction
2. Update the clarifications log
3. Re-analyze the affected data
4. Present revised interpretation for confirmation

Step 7: Generate Data Analysis Notes

Create notes/data-analysis.md:

# Data Analysis Notes

**Analyzed**: [timestamp]

## Data Files Processed

| File | Rows | Columns | Contents |
|------|------|---------|----------|
| results.csv | 156 | 12 | Main statistical results |
| demographics.csv | 156 | 8 | Patient characteristics |

## Study Population

- **Total enrolled**: [n]
- **Excluded**: [n] ([reasons])
- **Final cohort**: [n]

### Demographics

| Characteristic | Overall (n=X) | Group A (n=X) | Group B (n=X) | p-value |
|----------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------|
| Age, mean ± SD | XX ± XX | XX ± XX | XX ± XX | X.XXX |
| Male, n (%) | XX (XX%) | XX (XX%) | XX (XX%) | X.XXX |

## Primary Outcome

**Finding**: [description]

| Metric | Group A | Group B | Difference | p-value |
|--------|---------|---------|------------|---------|
| [outcome] | XX ± XX | XX ± XX | XX (95% CI: XX–XX) | X.XXX |

**Interpretation**: [what this means]

## Secondary Outcomes

### [Outcome 2]
[Statistics and interpretation]

### [Outcome 3]
[Statistics and interpretation]

## Figures

### Figure 1: [Title]
- **File**: figures/figure1.png
- **Type**: [box plot, ROC curve, etc.]
- **Shows**: [description]
- **Key observation**: [main takeaway]

### Figure 2: [Title]
- **File**: figures/figure2.png
- **Type**: [type]
- **Shows**: [description]
- **Key observation**: [takeaway]

## Statistical Summary

| Analysis | Test | Statistic | p-value | Interpretation |
|----------|------|-----------|---------|----------------|
| Primary | t-test | t = X.XX | 0.XXX | Significant/NS |
| Secondary | Mann-Whitney | U = XXX | 0.XXX | Significant/NS |

## Consistency Check

- [x] Demographics match reported sample size
- [x] Statistics align with scope.md key findings
- [x] Figures match data file values
- [ ] [Any discrepancies noted]

---

## Clarifications Log

| Date | Item | Question | User Response |
|------|------|----------|---------------|
| [date] | grp column | What do 0 and 1 mean? | 0 = control, 1 = treatment |
| [date] | outcome_val | Units? | mm³ |
| [date] | Primary outcome | Which is primary? | Tumor volume at week 8 |

---

## Assumptions Made

**None** — All interpretations were confirmed with user before proceeding.

(If any assumptions were made with user's consent, document them here with justification)

Step 8: Statistical Review

Before drafting Results, invoke the statistical reviewer agent for statistical review.

Read agents/statistical-reviewer.md and execute Phase 3 (Results Section Review):

1. Verify statistical reporting — Check all statistics are formatted correctly
2. Validate p-values — Ensure proper formatting (p = 0.043, not p = .043)
3. Check effect sizes — Confirm effect sizes reported with CIs
4. Cross-check with Methods — Verify Results matches Methods description
5. Flag common errors — Identify interpretation issues

Statistical Reviewer Results Checkpoint

## Statistical Reporting Review

| Statistic | Format OK? | Value Plausible? | CI Included? |
|-----------|------------|------------------|--------------|
| Primary outcome | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ |
| Secondary outcomes | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ |
| P-values | ✓/✗ | N/A | N/A |

**Issues Found**:
- [ ] None
- [ ] [List any issues]

**Statistical Sign-Off**: [ ] Approved for Results drafting

Do NOT proceed to Results draft until statistical reviewer approves.

If issues identified:

1. Correct statistical formatting
2. Add missing effect sizes or CIs
3. Flag interpretation concerns for user

Step 9: Draft Results Section

Only proceed after user has verified interpretations in Step 6 AND statistical reviewer sign-off in Step 8.

Create drafts/results.md:

# Results

## Study Population

[First paragraph ALWAYS describes the cohort]

A total of [n] patients were included in the analysis. [Exclusions if any]. The final cohort consisted of [n] patients (mean age XX ± XX years, XX% male). Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

## Primary Outcome

[Main finding with full statistics]

[Outcome] was significantly [higher/lower] in [Group A] compared to [Group B] (XX ± XX vs XX ± XX, p = X.XXX; Figure 1). The mean difference was XX (95% CI: XX–XX).

## Secondary Outcomes

### [Outcome 2]

[Description with statistics]

### [Outcome 3]

[Description with statistics]

## Model Performance (if applicable)

The [model type] achieved an AUC of X.XX (95% CI: X.XX–X.XX) for [classification task] (Figure X). At the optimal threshold, sensitivity was XX% and specificity was XX%.

## Subgroup Analyses (if applicable)

[Subgroup findings]

---

## Figure Legends

**Figure 1.** [Title]. [Description of what is shown]. [Statistical annotation explanation if needed]. Abbreviations: [list].

**Figure 2.** [Title]. [Description].

## Tables

**Table 1.** Baseline characteristics of the study population.

| Characteristic | Overall (n=X) | Group A (n=X) | Group B (n=X) | p-value |
|----------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------|
| Age, years | | | | |
| Male sex, n (%) | | | | |

---

## Results Checklist

- [ ] Study population described first
- [ ] Primary outcome reported with full statistics
- [ ] All p-values formatted correctly (p = 0.XXX or p < 0.001)
- [ ] Confidence intervals included for key findings
- [ ] All figures referenced in text
- [ ] All tables referenced in text
- [ ] No interpretation (saved for Discussion)

Statistical Reporting Guidelines

P-values

• p = 0.043 (not p = .043)
• p < 0.001 (not p = 0.000)
• p = 0.12 (report exact, even if NS)

Confidence Intervals

• 95% CI: 1.23–4.56 (en-dash, not hyphen)
• Include for all key effect sizes

Descriptive Statistics

• Normal: mean ± SD
• Non-normal: median (IQR) or median (Q1–Q3)
• Categorical: n (%)

Decimal Places

• Percentages: 1 decimal (62.5%)
• P-values: 3 decimals or < 0.001
• Correlations: 2 decimals (r = 0.45)
• AUC: 2 decimals (0.87)

Output

Save to:

• notes/data-analysis.md - Detailed analysis (includes clarifications log)
• drafts/results.md - Results section draft (with statistical reviewer approval)

Return to parent skill with summary:

• Data files analyzed: [n]
• Figures interpreted: [n]
• Primary finding confirmed: [yes/no]
• Statistical reviewer status: [approved / revisions needed]
• Statistical issues: [list if any]
• Results word count: [n]