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 A source that cannot be resolved, or that has been retracted, blocks publication.

Who is responsible for this work

Ibrahem Albalkhi holds editorial responsibility for everything published on this site. He is an AI and healthcare researcher with 36 PubMed-indexed publications as of 13 August 2026; the citations are linked on the about page. He decides what publishes, what is held back, and what is corrected. Disputes about anything on this site reach him at the corrections address below.

Human review

A draft becomes a published page only after a person reads it against its sources. Every piece is checked for accuracy, clarity, and tone before it publishes, and the editorial owner named above signs off on what goes live.

Where a named subject-matter reviewer has independently reviewed an article, that person is credited in the article’s byline block. Where no such review has happened, we say nothing — we do not credit a review that was not performed. Most of the library carries editorial review only today; independent clinical and regulatory review is being added article by article as reviewers join, and the credit appears when it has been earned.

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, and logged below, 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.

A correction changes a fact, a figure, or a conclusion. Fixing a typo, a broken link, or a formatting error is not a correction and is not logged. Routine scheduled updates to living pages are shown by the update date on the page itself.

Corrections log

This log opened on 13 August 2026. No substantive corrections have been recorded since.

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.