Trust grows through transparency.

Describes how text was produced. It is not a scientific review status.

Describes human editing. It does not on its own establish expert review.

Claims are linked to sources. Quality and applicability still need assessment.

Requires a documented expert review process with scope, date and responsibility.

Distinguish systematic reviews, individual studies, case reports, mechanistic assumptions and experience reports. Strength of evidence depends on the question, study design, quality and applicability, not a rank alone.

Link original sources transparently and record dates, substances, context and limitations. Class-based findings must not silently become substance-specific claims.

Check claims, clarity and risk language against sources. AI assistance should be identified and does not replace human review.

Future expert review should document the reviewer, scope, date and interest declaration. It applies only to the specific content reviewed.

Corrections can be raised through the existing contact channel. Traceable changes, version records and prioritization of safety-relevant feedback are planned.

Financial and professional interests should be declared before involvement. Future research collaborations require clear responsibility, data rights, privacy and publication rules.