Medical Review Policy

Our goal is to make health and wellness information useful, understandable, balanced, and proportionate to the evidence. This policy applies to Glowise-authored website articles, educational guides, health-related feature explanations, calculator methodology, and other content that could reasonably influence a user’s understanding of health, nutrition, medication tracking, or GLP-1 care.

This policy does not turn Glowise into a healthcare provider. Medical review is an editorial quality-control process, not individualized clinical care. The limitations in our Medical and Wellness Disclaimer continue to apply.

Medically reviewed

A “medically reviewed” label means a qualified professional has reviewed the material within the scope of that person’s expertise for material factual errors, unsafe framing, unsupported clinical implications, and consistency with the cited evidence. The page must display the reviewer’s name, relevant professional credentials, and review date.

Editorially reviewed

An editorial review checks clarity, internal consistency, links, and basic source attribution. It is not a clinical review and must not be presented as one.

Automated or personalized outputs

Questionnaire results, reminders, calculations, summaries, and AI-assisted outputs are generated for individual users and are not individually reviewed by a healthcare professional before display. Review of the underlying methodology or source content does not mean each output is medically reviewed.

Reviewers and editors should use sources appropriate to the claim and its potential risk. Priority is generally given to:

• current regulator communications, approved product labeling, and public-health agency guidance;
• clinical guidelines and consensus statements from recognized professional organizations;
• systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and well-designed peer-reviewed human studies;
• authoritative reference works and high-quality observational evidence when stronger evidence is unavailable.

Health-benefit and safety claims must be truthful, not misleading, appropriately qualified, and supported before publication. Testimonials, anecdotes, user-generated content, preprints, and animal or laboratory studies may provide context but are not treated as sufficient standalone support for clinical claims.

When evidence is mixed, limited, indirect, or changing, the content should say so. Relative effects should not be presented without meaningful context, and association should not be described as causation.

1. Scope: define the audience, intended user question, claims, and foreseeable risks.
2. Research: collect current, relevant sources and preserve source links or citations.
3. Draft: distinguish established facts, estimates, uncertainties, and practical suggestions.
4. Editorial review: check readability, balance, consistency, disclosures, and product accuracy.
5. Medical review when required: send health-sensitive material to a reviewer whose qualifications match the subject.
6. Revision and approval: resolve substantive comments before applying a medical-review label.
7. Publication record: display and retain the reviewer, credentials, review date, and material source record.

If a reviewer cannot support a material claim, the claim must be revised, qualified, removed, or held from publication. Marketing language does not override the evidence standard.

A medical reviewer should hold a current, relevant professional license or recognized credential where the profession is regulated, and should review only within the reviewer’s training and scope of practice. Depending on the subject, an appropriate reviewer may include a physician, registered dietitian or dietitian nutritionist, pharmacist, nurse, psychologist, or another qualified health professional.

Credentials are not interchangeable. For example, medication safety and dosing content may require a prescriber or pharmacist, while detailed nutrition content may be suited to a registered dietitian. Glowise should not use a reviewer’s name or credentials without permission or imply that the reviewer endorses the product as a whole.

For health-related calculators and structured tools, review should address the formula or decision logic, intended population, input limits, units, assumptions, result boundaries, warning text, and known exclusions. Automated tests should cover representative and boundary inputs where practical.

AI may assist with drafting, summarization, translation, or user-facing outputs, but it is not treated as an author or medical reviewer. Material health claims proposed by AI require human source verification before publication. AI-generated or personalized outputs must not be described as individually medically reviewed.

Content carrying a medical-review label should be reassessed after a material change in relevant product labeling, safety information, clinical guidance, law, or Glowise functionality. Glowise also aims to review such content on a risk-based schedule, with higher-risk and medication-related content receiving more frequent attention.

A minor copy or formatting update does not necessarily require a new medical review. A change to a health claim, recommendation, calculation method, eligibility boundary, safety warning, or cited conclusion does.

Potential errors are triaged according to their likely impact. A safety-critical or materially misleading statement should be corrected, unpublished, or clearly qualified as soon as reasonably practicable. Non-material wording or formatting issues may be corrected through the ordinary editorial process.

When a correction materially changes the meaning of reviewed content, the page should be re-reviewed and its review date updated. Users can report a suspected error at [email protected].

Editorial and medical decisions should not be changed solely to improve conversion, engagement, or commercial outcomes. Authors and reviewers should disclose financial, professional, or personal relationships that could reasonably affect their judgment. A material conflict should be disclosed, managed through an independent reviewer, or result in reassignment.

References to medicines, manufacturers, healthcare organizations, or third-party products do not imply sponsorship or endorsement unless expressly stated.

Medical review reduces avoidable errors but cannot make general information complete for every person, guarantee that guidance will never change, or predict an individual outcome. Reviewed content remains educational and is not a substitute for care from a professional who knows the user’s history.

This policy draws on the principle that general wellness software should remain separate from diagnosis or treatment, and that objective health claims should be truthful, appropriately qualified, and supported by reliable evidence. Relevant public references include the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s digital health policy navigator, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s Health Products Compliance Guidance, and the National Library of Medicine’s guidance on evaluating health information.

Questions about this policy or requests for correction may be sent to [email protected]. Do not send medical emergencies or requests for individualized medical advice to this address.