How this work is researched and reviewed.

What we cover, and for whom

We write about artificial intelligence in healthcare — the evidence behind clinical tools, how they are evaluated, and how they behave once deployed. Our readers are practicing clinicians, health-system leaders, and the people building this technology. We write in plain language, and we assume a reader who wants the reasoning behind a finding as much as the finding itself.

Sourcing standards

Every factual claim in a published piece is tied to a primary source: a peer-reviewed study, a regulatory filing, an official dataset, or a document from the organization that produced the information. We prefer the original over any summary of it. Each article carries a numbered source list, and each figure in the text points to the source it came from.

• Statistics carry the date they reflect and the study or filing they are drawn from. Where a number changes over time, the page is a living one and shows when it was last updated.
• Clinical and regulatory claims are held to the primary literature. Marketing material and secondary reporting may point us toward a source, but they are never the source themselves.
• Before a piece is published, an automated gate resolves every citation against Crossref and the live web, and checks each referenced work for a retraction notice. A source that cannot be resolved, or that has been retracted, blocks publication.

Human review

A draft becomes a published page only after human review. An editor reads every piece for accuracy against its sources, clarity, and tone. Work that makes clinical or regulatory claims receives a closer read at that level of rigor, and the reviewer is named on the page. As the community grows, subject-matter reviewers from the faculty join this step; until then, the founding editor holds it.

You can see who wrote and who reviewed any page in its byline, and follow the link to their reviewer profile.

How we use AI assistance

We are honest about our own tools. AI assists us with research, drafting, and editing — the same category of work it does across the field we cover. It does not have the final word. Every claim an AI system helps produce is checked by a person against a primary source, and every page is reviewed and approved by a named human editor before it publishes. We do not publish AI-generated text that no person has verified, and we never present a machine as the author of clinical judgment.

Independence

Our editorial choices are made on the merits. When we write about a tool, a vendor, or a study, coverage is not exchanged for payment, and a commercial relationship — where one exists — is disclosed on the page. Guest contributors and faculty are identified as such, and their affiliations are stated.

Corrections

When we get something wrong, we fix it in the open. A substantive correction is noted on the page along with the date it was made, so the record stays honest. If you believe a page contains an error, write to corrections@aimocs.com with the page and the specific claim, and we will review it against the source.

Freshness

A field this fast makes accuracy a moving target. Pages carry the date they were last updated, and we revisit them on a schedule — more often for statistics and regulation, less often for stable definitions — and whenever a development on the ground makes an update warranted.