Our editorial approach
We assemble guidance using public registries, primary literature, and official testing standards; where relevant we link to authoritative sources so readers can check original documents. For example, we rely on standards and chemistry references similar to those found on academic repositories such as NCBI's literature portal to ground method descriptions in peer-reviewed work.
Our editors do not provide clinical advice. Instead, we translate technical labeling terms into plain language and document the limits of available evidence. To support best practice for transparency we document our sources in each explainers' notes and cite official guidance on testing and terminology such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health when appropriate — for instance see nih.gov for public-health reference frameworks.
How we vet information
- Primary-first sourcing: we prefer primary studies and laboratory protocols over secondary summaries.
- Transparent uncertainty: we label assumptions and evidence gaps directly in each item.
- Cross-checking: independent verification against registries and standards bodies.