Our editorial process

Trust is everything in health information. Here's exactly how every VidaBeacon article is made — and where we are honest about our limits.

1
Research from primary sources
Every article starts with current, high-quality sources: professional medical associations (such as ACOG and The Menopause Society), government health agencies (NIH, CDC, NHS), and peer-reviewed research. We prioritize guidelines and systematic reviews over single small studies.
2
Drafting
We use AI tools to help research and draft, working strictly from those primary sources. We're transparent about this — see “How we use AI” below. The goal is clear, balanced, plain-language writing that avoids hype, fear, and oversimplification.
3
Accuracy & honesty review
Every draft goes through a structured review that checks each claim against its sources, flags anything overstated or missing a caveat, and confirms the honest, well-hedged framing that health topics require — plus relevant safety information and red flags.
4
Medical review (in progress)
We're working to establish independent review by credentialed clinicians. Until that is in place, our content is clearly marked as editorially reviewed, not yet clinician-reviewed, and we never label an article “medically reviewed.”
5
Sources shown & kept current
We link the sources behind our claims so you can read them yourself, show when each article was last reviewed, and update content as guidance changes.

How we use AI — and why we tell you

We use AI tools to help research and draft our articles. We think you deserve to know that, rather than hide it. What matters is not whether a tool was involved, but whether the result is accurate, honest, and grounded in real evidence — so every article is written from primary medical sources and put through a structured accuracy-and-honesty review before it is published.

We do not publish unreviewed, auto-generated text, we do not invent statistics or studies, and we do not present our content as reviewed by an individual clinician until that is genuinely true. Transparency about how health content is made is part of how we earn your trust.

Why you can trust us

We build articles from authoritative primary sources and link them.
We hedge honestly — “may,” “evidence is limited,” “talk to a clinician” — instead of overpromising.
We show a last-reviewed date on our content.
We never claim an article is “medically reviewed” until a qualified clinician has actually reviewed it.
We keep editorial and any commercial interests separate, and we correct mistakes openly.

The library, in numbers

Trust pages tend to describe intentions. These are the measured figures for what is actually published, taken from the live database on 29 August 2026 and refreshed when they drift.

VidaBeacon library as of 29 August 2026
Measure	Figure
Published articles	540
Total words	824,849
Median article length	1,419 words
Cited sources across the library	3,601
Average sources per article	6.7
Articles published with no source at all	0
Reader questions answered in FAQ sections	3,990
Named medical reviewer on staff	None yet

Of those 3,601 sources, 1,424 are government health agencies, 714 are clinical guidelines or position statements from professional bodies, and 249 are peer-reviewed studies. The remainder are academic medical centres, drug labels, regulatory announcements and manufacturer documentation, each labelled on the article that cites it.

The last row is the one that matters most and the one most sites leave out. We do not have a named clinician reviewing this library, and we do not pretend otherwise anywhere on the site. Every claim is checked against a primary source and the source is shown, which is a different and weaker guarantee than clinical review. When that changes, the reviewer will be named on the articles they actually read, not applied retroactively across the archive.

Our sourcing standards

We rely on primary sources wherever possible and avoid tertiary references. When we cite a study or guideline, we link to it so you can read it yourself. We prioritize systematic reviews and large, well-designed studies over single small ones.

Corrections

If you spot an error, we want to know. We correct mistakes promptly and transparently. You can reach us through our contact page.

Our editorial process

Trust is everything in health information. Here's exactly how every VidaBeacon article is made — and where we are honest about our limits.

Research from primary sources

Every article starts with current, high-quality sources: professional medical associations (such as ACOG and The Menopause Society), government health agencies (NIH, CDC, NHS), and peer-reviewed research. We prioritize guidelines and systematic reviews over single small studies.

Drafting

We use AI tools to help research and draft, working strictly from those primary sources. We're transparent about this — see “How we use AI” below. The goal is clear, balanced, plain-language writing that avoids hype, fear, and oversimplification.

Accuracy & honesty review

Every draft goes through a structured review that checks each claim against its sources, flags anything overstated or missing a caveat, and confirms the honest, well-hedged framing that health topics require — plus relevant safety information and red flags.

Medical review (in progress)

We're working to establish independent review by credentialed clinicians. Until that is in place, our content is clearly marked as editorially reviewed, not yet clinician-reviewed, and we never label an article “medically reviewed.”

Sources shown & kept current

We link the sources behind our claims so you can read them yourself, show when each article was last reviewed, and update content as guidance changes.