Loading...
AI readiness assessment →AI Readiness Assessment — review your readiness →New: AI Readiness Assessment — review your current AI readiness. Open the assessment →
Loading...
Real practitioners on camera. No synthetic presenters, no synthetic voices, no generated footage. AI may assist research, drafting, transcription, and QA. Named humans remain responsible for everything we publish. Trust in this market should rest on a process you can read, source-check, and hold us to.
Last reviewed 2026-07-02
This is the publication standard we are building toward: primary sources first, named human review, and an open record afterward. The current article publishing system does not yet enforce every step.
Our standard starts with primary sources — indexed literature, official guidelines, regulatory filings, vendor documentation we can hold to its word, and hands-on testing. Vendor marketing is input for questions, not treated as an answer.
Our standard calls for claims to be reviewed against their supporting sources by people who build and use these systems. Under that standard, unsupported claims must be fixed or cut.
Our standard calls for two named review lenses on each verdict. The Clinical Read covers clinical safety and patient impact. The Build Read covers architecture, data handling, and vendor engineering. The article publishing system does not yet require these sign-offs.
Our standard requires clinical claims to be traceable to primary sources, statistics to retain their source and date, and comparisons to state their test conditions. The current article renderer does not yet display that source record, so we do not present it as an enforced publishing feature.
Material corrections are published in the open with a dated note and an entry in the public log. Distributed pieces may be re-issued when warranted. Our policy is not to silently edit a clinical claim.
Each check addresses a different way a claim can go wrong. These are editorial requirements; the current article publish gate does not record that each check occurred.
Our standard requires each clinical claim to point to source text that supports it. If a claim says more than its citation says, the claim is narrowed, replaced, or cut.
Our standard calls for cited papers to be checked against their publication records, including study type, identifiers, corrections, and retractions. A later correction or retraction should trigger a new review of affected content.
We separate what a study actually found from what a vendor, headline, or excited reader might wish it found. A claim can be true in one population, workflow, or jurisdiction and false when generalized.
The Clinical Read is assigned to Dr. Zalzala; the Build Read is assigned to Isam. These are the accountable review roles in our standard, but the article publish gate does not currently record or require either approval.
Named reviewer sign-off is part of the publication standard we are building. It is not currently enforced by the article publishing system, so a listed name should not be read as proof of a system-recorded approval.
Our standard requires clinical claims to be traceable to primary sources, statistics to retain their source and date, and tool comparisons to state their test conditions. The current article renderer does not yet display that complete source record. Under the standard, thin evidence must be labeled and unsupported claims must be narrowed, sourced, or cut.
We publish a dated correction as soon as review is complete and record material corrections in the public log. Distributed pieces may be re-issued when warranted. When we identify a correction or retraction affecting a cited paper, we revisit the affected content and add a visible notice when appropriate. Our policy is not to silently edit a clinical claim after publication.
Open the corrections log →Peer-reviewed, indexed studies, identified by PMID or DOI where available so readers can find the paper. In this hierarchy, trials outrank observational data; observational data outranks case reports.
Official clinical guidelines, statutes, regulatory guidance, and standards bodies — always with the issuing organization and effective date named.
Preprints, white papers, and industry data can inform coverage, but they are always labeled for what they are, never dressed up as settled evidence, and never the sole support for a clinical recommendation.
We take no vendor money, and every commercial interest the founders hold is disclosed by name — including where those interests could touch coverage, and what we quarantine because of them. The Independence Policy covers the pledge, how we make money instead, founder disclosures, the vendor right-of-reply process, and the editorial firewall.
Read the Independence Policy →Our standard assigns two review lenses. Dr. Sajad Zalzala, MD — practicing physician licensed in all 50 U.S. states, computer science undergraduate, founder of a multi-million-dollar-revenue longevity/telehealth startup, PEARL trial senior author — is responsible for The Clinical Read. Isam Waqar — 20+ years product and engineering, Consultanist founder, builder of this platform's review tooling — is responsible for The Build Read. The article publishing system does not yet require or record both sign-offs.
Our standard calls for checking whether a source exists, whether it supports the exact claim, whether the claim has been generalized too far, and whether corrections or retractions have changed the public record. The current publishing gate does not independently prove that those checks occurred.
Our source hierarchy puts primary literature first, guidelines and regulatory sources second, and labeled preprints or gray literature after them. The standard requires each reference to exist and support the claim it accompanies. The current article renderer does not yet expose a complete source record for readers.
We publish a dated correction as soon as review is complete and record material corrections in the public corrections log. Distributed pieces may be re-issued when warranted. When we identify a correction or retraction affecting a cited paper, we revisit the affected content and add a visible notice when appropriate. Our policy is not to silently edit clinical claims after publication.
No. No vendor sponsorships, no affiliate revenue, no paid placements, no vendor-funded webinars — ever. Revenue comes only from readers and attendees: bootcamps, membership, team licenses, and separately disclosed consulting. The full policy, including founder disclosures and the vendor right-of-reply process, is at /independence.
Our standard calls for re-review when a state law, malpractice carrier policy, FDA action, retraction alert, or major guideline change may make prior guidance stale. The site does not currently expose an article-level review date or enforce a fixed update cadence.
See also the Independence Policy, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and who's accountable.
Educational content only — not medical or legal advice.
Consult professionals licensed in your jurisdiction.