End-to-end clinical trial analysis workflow from CDISC SDTM/ADaM loading through ICH E9(R1) estimand-driven primary analysis to CONSORT 2025 regulatory-compliant reporting. Covers data preparation, FDA 2023 marginal vs conditional logistic regression, categorical tests with Boschloo, modern HTE/subgroup methods, missing-data sensitivity (MMRM, reference-based MI, Permutt tipping point), graphical multiplicity (Bretz-Maurer), survival analysis (Cox/RMST/competing risks) when applicable, and Table 1. Use when performing a complete analysis of clinical trial data.
npx skills add https://github.com/BioTender-max/awesome-bio-agent-skills --skill bio-workflows-clinical-trial-pipeline
Reference examples tested with: statsmodels 0.14+, scipy 1.12+, tableone 0.9+, pyreadstat 1.2+, pandas 2.1+, numpy 1.26+, matplotlib 3.8+
Before using code patterns, verify installed versions match. If versions differ:
pip show <package> then help(module.function) to check signaturesIf code throws ImportError, AttributeError, or TypeError, introspect the installed
package and adapt the example to match the actual API rather than retrying.
"Analyze my clinical trial data end to end" -> Load CDISC domain tables, prepare a subject-level analysis dataset, run primary statistical models, perform subgroup analyses, and generate regulatory-compliant tables and figures.
Complete workflow for clinical trial statistical analysis from raw data to publication-ready results.
Before executing any analysis step, establish the causal framework. For an RCT, randomization justifies causal interpretation of the primary analysis, but subgroup analyses and observational comparisons within the trial (e.g., adherence effects) do not inherit this protection. Key decisions requiring scientific judgment at each step: (1) data preparation -- which aggregation strategy matches the estimand, (2) covariate selection -- include confounders and prognostic factors from the SAP, exclude mediators and colliders, (3) subgroup analysis -- test only biologically motivated interactions, (4) missing data -- link DS domain reasons to the assumed mechanism before choosing a method. The workflow below provides the technical steps; the scientific reasoning at each decision point determines whether the results are valid.
CDISC Domain Files (DM, AE, EX, LB)
|
v
[1. Data Preparation] ----> Subject-level dataset with outcomes and covariates
|
v
[2. Table 1] ------------> Baseline characteristics by treatment arm
|
v
[3. Primary Analysis] ---> Logistic regression with OR extraction
|
v
[4. Categorical Tests] --> Chi-square / Fisher's exact for key associations
|
v
[5. Subgroup Analysis] --> Interaction terms, stratified ORs, forest plot
|
v
[6. Missing Data] -------> Multiple imputation sensitivity analysis
|
v
Results tables and figures
Goal: Create a single subject-level analysis dataset from CDISC domain tables.
Approach: Load domain files, aggregate event-level data to one row per subject, merge on USUBJID, and code the outcome variable.
import pandas as pd
import pyreadstat
dm, _ = pyreadstat.read_xport('dm.xpt')
ae, _ = pyreadstat.read_xport('ae.xpt')
# Aggregate: did each subject have the target adverse event?
target_ae = ae[ae['AEDECOD'] == 'COVID-19']
severity_map = {'MILD': 1, 'MODERATE': 2, 'SEVERE': 3, 'LIFE THREATENING': 4, 'FATAL': 5}
target_ae['AESEV_NUM'] = target_ae['AESEV'].map(severity_map)
had_event = target_ae.groupby('USUBJID')['AESEV_NUM'].max().reset_index()
had_event.columns = ['USUBJID', 'EVENT_SEVERITY']
analysis = dm[['USUBJID', 'ARM', 'ARMCD', 'AGE', 'SEX']].merge(had_event, on='USUBJID', how='left')
analysis['HAD_EVENT'] = analysis['EVENT_SEVERITY'].notna().astype(int)
analysis['TREATMENT'] = (analysis['ARMCD'] != 'PLACEBO').astype(int)
QC Checkpoint: Verify one row per USUBJID, no unexpected duplicates, treatment arms are present and reasonably balanced.
assert analysis['USUBJID'].is_unique, 'Duplicate subjects detected'
print(analysis['ARM'].value_counts())
Goal: Summarize demographics and baseline variables by treatment arm.
Approach: Use TableOne to generate a publication-ready table with p-values and standardized mean differences.
from tableone import TableOne
columns = ['AGE', 'SEX', 'RACE']
categorical = ['SEX', 'RACE']
table1 = TableOne(analysis, columns=columns, categorical=categorical,
groupby='ARM', pval=True, smd=True, missing=True)
print(table1.tabulate(tablefmt='github'))
Interpret SMD > 0.1 as meaningful imbalance rather than relying on p-values, which test whether randomization worked (a known mechanism, not a hypothesis).
Goal: Estimate the treatment effect on the binary outcome as an adjusted odds ratio.
Approach: Fit a logistic regression with explicit reference category and clinically relevant covariates, then exponentiate coefficients to obtain ORs.
import statsmodels.formula.api as smf
import numpy as np
model = smf.logit(
'HAD_EVENT ~ C(ARM, Treatment(reference="Placebo")) + AGE + C(SEX)',
data=analysis
).fit()
or_table = pd.DataFrame({
'OR': np.exp(model.params),
'Lower_CI': np.exp(model.conf_int()[0]),
'Upper_CI': np.exp(model.conf_int()[1]),
'p_value': model.pvalues
})
print(or_table)
print(f'McFadden pseudo-R2: {model.prsquared:.4f}')
QC Checkpoint: Verify model converged (no warnings), check for separation (coefficients > 10 or SE > 100), report pseudo-R-squared (McFadden > 0.2 is excellent; do not compare across pseudo-R2 types).
Goal: Test the crude association between treatment and outcome using contingency tables.
Approach: Build a 2x2 table, check expected cell counts, and choose chi-square or Fisher's exact accordingly.
from scipy.stats import chi2_contingency, fisher_exact
table = pd.crosstab(analysis['ARM'], analysis['HAD_EVENT'])
chi2, p, dof, expected = chi2_contingency(table, correction=False)
if (expected < 5).any():
_, p = fisher_exact(table.values)
print(f'Fisher exact p = {p:.4f}')
else:
print(f'Chi-square p = {p:.4f} (chi2 = {chi2:.2f}, dof = {dof})')
Goal: Test whether the treatment effect varies across pre-specified subgroups.
Approach: Fit a model with an interaction term, extract subgroup-specific ORs, adjust for multiplicity, and visualize with a forest plot.
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# Interaction test
interaction_model = smf.logit(
'HAD_EVENT ~ C(ARM, Treatment(reference="Placebo")) * C(SUBGROUP)',
data=analysis
).fit()
# Subgroup-specific ORs
labels, ors, lowers, uppers = [], [], [], []
for group in analysis['SUBGROUP'].unique():
sub = analysis[analysis['SUBGROUP'] == group]
sub_model = smf.logit(
'HAD_EVENT ~ C(ARM, Treatment(reference="Placebo"))',
data=sub
).fit(disp=0)
or_val = np.exp(sub_model.params.iloc[1])
ci = np.exp(sub_model.conf_int().iloc[1])
labels.append(group)
ors.append(or_val)
lowers.append(ci[0])
uppers.append(ci[1])
# Multiplicity correction for subgroup p-values
from statsmodels.stats.multitest import multipletests
sub_pvals = [smf.logit('HAD_EVENT ~ C(ARM, Treatment(reference="Placebo"))',
data=analysis[analysis['SUBGROUP'] == g]).fit(disp=0).pvalues.iloc[1]
for g in labels]
_, adjusted_pvals, _, _ = multipletests(sub_pvals, method='holm')
# Forest plot
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(8, 5))
y_pos = range(len(labels))
ax.errorbar(ors, y_pos,
xerr=[np.array(ors) - np.array(lowers), np.array(uppers) - np.array(ors)],
fmt='D', color='black', capsize=3, markersize=5)
ax.axvline(x=1.0, color='gray', linestyle='--', linewidth=0.8)
ax.set_yticks(y_pos)
ax.set_yticklabels(labels)
ax.set_xlabel('Odds Ratio (95% CI)')
ax.set_xscale('log')
plt.tight_layout()
plt.savefig('forest_plot.png', dpi=150)
QC Checkpoint: Interaction p-value reported. Multiplicity correction applied if testing multiple subgroups. Forest plot shows overall estimate for context.
Goal: Assess robustness of the primary result under the pre-specified ICE strategy with both MAR primary and MNAR sensitivity analyses.
Approach: First examine DS (Disposition) domain for differential dropout patterns; if dropout differs by arm, MAR is suspect and reference-based MI is required as primary. Otherwise, fit MMRM under MAR with Rubin's-rules pooling for continuous endpoints, or g-computation with bootstrap for binary. Always run Permutt 2016 tipping-point sensitivity in residual SD units.
from sklearn.experimental import enable_iterative_imputer
from sklearn.impute import IterativeImputer
n_imputations = 20
covariate_cols = ['AGE'] # Only impute covariates, not treatment or outcome
mi_data = analysis.dropna(subset=['HAD_EVENT', 'TREATMENT']).copy()
results = []
for i in range(n_imputations):
imputer = IterativeImputer(max_iter=10, random_state=i, sample_posterior=True)
imputed_cov = pd.DataFrame(imputer.fit_transform(mi_data[covariate_cols]),
columns=covariate_cols, index=mi_data.index)
imputed_cov['HAD_EVENT'] = mi_data['HAD_EVENT'].values
imputed_cov['TREATMENT'] = mi_data['TREATMENT'].values
model_imp = smf.logit('HAD_EVENT ~ TREATMENT + AGE', data=imputed_cov).fit(disp=0)
results.append({'coef': model_imp.params['TREATMENT'], 'se': model_imp.bse['TREATMENT']})
pooled_coef = np.mean([r['coef'] for r in results])
within_var = np.mean([r['se']**2 for r in results])
between_var = np.var([r['coef'] for r in results], ddof=1)
total_var = within_var + (1 + 1/n_imputations) * between_var
pooled_or = np.exp(pooled_coef)
pooled_ci = (np.exp(pooled_coef - 1.96 * np.sqrt(total_var)),
np.exp(pooled_coef + 1.96 * np.sqrt(total_var)))
print(f'Pooled OR: {pooled_or:.3f} ({pooled_ci[0]:.3f}-{pooled_ci[1]:.3f})')
QC Checkpoint: Compare pooled OR and CI with the complete-case primary analysis. Large discrepancies suggest missing data may not be MCAR. Document the comparison.
This pipeline covers the typical binary-endpoint RCT workflow. For specific designs, add the corresponding specialized skill:
Use this skill when implementing tasks according to Conductor's TDD workflow, handling phase checkpoints, managing git commits for tasks, or understanding the verification protocol.
Prepares and structurally reviews readiness evidence for ISO management-system and laboratory-competence standards - ISO 13485 medical device QMS, ISO 14971 device risk management, ISO/IEC 17025 testing and calibration laboratories, and ISO 15189 medical laboratories. Use when organizing declared scope, controlled documents, risk-management files, scope of accreditation, traceability, CAPA, external-provider controls, or bounded local evidence manifests, and when separating ISO certification from laboratory accreditation, FDA QMSR inspection, CLIA certification, MDSAP, and EU MDR/IVDR evidence boundaries. Not for legal applicability, compliance, certification, or accreditation decisions; contains no clause text.
Sample-size and statistical power calculations for planning studies. Use whenever someone asks "how many subjects/samples/replicates do I need", wants an a priori power analysis, a minimum detectable effect (MDE), a power curve, or needs to justify a sample size for a grant, IRB protocol, or pre-registration. Covers closed-form power for t-tests, ANOVA, proportions, correlations, chi-square, and regression, plus simulation-based (Monte Carlo) power for designs with no formula — logistic/Poisson regression, mixed models, cluster-randomized trials, survival, and interactions. Use this skill even when the request only mentions an effect size, alpha, or "80% power" without saying "power analysis" explicitly. For laying out the study (randomization, blocking, factorial/DOE, crossover, sequential designs) use experimental-design; for analyzing data already collected and reporting it use statistical-analysis.
> reviewed spec → dependency-graphed task board → safe-wave TDD execution → verification → converge. Handles features, bugs, refactors, greenfield projects, planning breakdowns, and migrations. Triggers on "absolute work", "build this end-to-end", "plan and build", "break this into tasks", "grill me on this plan", "pick up this ticket", "run this migration".
Senior Elite Software Engineer (15+) and Senior Product Designer. Full workflow with planning, architecture, TDD, clean code, and pixel-perfect UX validation.
Run PinchBench benchmarks to evaluate OpenClaw agent performance across real-world tasks. Use when testing model capabilities, comparing models, submitting benchmark results to the leaderboard, or checking how well your OpenClaw setup handles calendar, email, research, coding, and multi-step workflows.
Use this skill when implementing tasks according to Conductor's TDD workflow, handling phase checkpoints, managing git commits for tasks, or understanding the verification protocol.
Verify PowerToys behavior end-to-end with the winapp CLI across two scenarios: (A) a module's release checklist against the installed build; (B) PR validation — derive each PR's checklist from its description + diff, then drive it against the installed build (a merged/shipped PR, or a whole release/hotfix set) or by building + sideloading the module when the PR isn't in the build yet (unmerged or not-yet-released). Drive each item via UIA invoke / Named Events / settings.json edits / clipboard / GPO / SendInput, and emit a structured PASS / FAIL / BLOCKED verdict per item with evidence (FAIL distinguishes product defects from stale/ambiguous checklist items). Use when asked to verify a module checklist, validate a PR, sign off a release/hotfix's PRs, or QA installed/sideloaded PowerToys bits. Combines generic winapp ui mechanics (references/winapp-ui-testing.md) with PT-specific recipes, per-scenario playbooks (references/scenarios/), and the helper .ps1 files shipped with this skill.
Take biotender-max/bio-workflows-clinical-trial-pipeline from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the
same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.