01
Receive the concern
We accept correction requests, source concerns, and broken-link reports from readers, cited sources, organizations, and subject-matter experts.
Trust & accountability
A correction is part of the record.
Health AI Central welcomes information that improves the accuracy, clarity, and usefulness of our work. This policy explains how to report a concern and how we evaluate it.
Report a concern
Give us the detail needed to check the claim.
The most helpful reports identify the affected page or record, describe the concern precisely, and include a direct source or supporting documentation when available. You may report a factual inaccuracy, outdated information, a broken link, missing context, or another issue that could materially affect a reader's understanding.
If the concern is about a specific article, use the Report issue control on that article whenever possible. You can also send an editorial note to press@healthaicentral.com.
What we review
We assess material accuracy and clarity concerns.
A correction request is most useful when it points to a claim that is factually inaccurate, materially incomplete, outdated, unsupported by its cited source, or linked to a resource that no longer works. We also review concerns about misleading framing when the missing context would substantially change the meaning for a reasonable reader.
We do not treat a difference of opinion, a request for favorable coverage, or a disagreement with a clearly labeled analysis as a correction by itself. We may still consider whether additional context or a response is appropriate when new, credible evidence is provided.
Our process
Review first. Respond transparently.
We evaluate reports in light of the published work and the best available evidence. A report may result in a correction, clarification, update, response, or no change when the record does not substantiate the concern. We do not promise a specific outcome or timeline, but we treat well-supported reports as part of our editorial accountability.
02
Assess the record
We review the report against the published item and the available primary documentation, source material, or reliable reporting relevant to the concern.
03
Document an appropriate response
When a material issue is substantiated, we determine the clearest way to correct or clarify the record. The response depends on the nature and significance of the issue.
The published record
Accuracy requires transparency, not silent revision.
Published work reflects the evidence and editorial judgment available at the time of publication. We preserve that context and do not retroactively reformat or otherwise revise older articles merely to conform to newer presentation conventions.
When a material correction or clarification is warranted, we will determine the clearest transparent record for readers based on the nature of the issue. We also welcome source updates that improve future reporting, even when they do not require a change to a published item.
Related standard
See the editorial standards that guide our work.
Learn how Health AI Central approaches evidence, sources, independence, disclosures, and the role of structured systems in editorial work.