What this policy covers
This policy describes how PelvicEx creates and maintains educational articles, safety pages, programme explanations, product documentation, and comparisons. It applies to English and every supported localized version published through the shared guide system.
The PelvicEx project owner is responsible for what PelvicEx publishes. A writing tool, search engine, source author, advertiser, or software contributor does not take over that responsibility. A page must not imply that a named editorial board or clinician approved it unless that approval actually occurred.
The content library uses AI-assisted drafting, source ledgers, internal risk levels, and versioned quality-control records. Public pages focus on what a guide supports, where it may not apply, and when symptoms need appropriate care.
Editorial goals
PelvicEx content should help a reader understand a narrow question and make a safer next decision. It should be:
- accurate enough for its stated scope and cautious where evidence is uncertain;
- clear about the difference between education, self-guided exercise, and clinical care;
- inclusive across relevant sexes, genders, bodies, ages, and life stages without erasing important population differences;
- useful without making a diagnosis, prescription, or guaranteed-outcome claim;
- traceable to legitimate sources near the claims they support;
- original writing rather than copied, lightly rearranged, or source-shaped prose;
- equivalent in meaning and caution across the supported languages;
- independent of advertising, subscriptions, affiliate relationships, and competitor interests.
Readability never justifies removing a material limitation. A concise answer should still tell the reader when its advice may not apply.
How a guide starts
Each guide begins with a written brief: the reader’s question, intended scope, content-risk level, claims to include, claims to avoid, safety boundaries, and expected sources. The topic roadmap separates foundational education from technique, symptom, programme, and specialist subjects so that a broad keyword does not silently become an individualized treatment plan.
Before drafting, the editor creates a fact outline and source ledger. Important claims are mapped to evidence IDs or official reader-facing links. The outline should distinguish:
- definitions from treatment recommendations;
- evidence about a studied population from assumptions about everyone;
- a symptom association from a diagnosis;
- a possible benefit from a promised outcome;
- professional guidance from PelvicEx product choices;
- verified product behaviour from assumptions about how the product works.
If the evidence cannot support the proposed claim, the claim is narrowed, qualified, moved to a higher review level, or removed.
Source selection
PelvicEx prefers sources that let readers verify both provenance and context. Depending on the question, these may include clinical guidelines, consensus terminology reports, systematic reviews, primary research, government health agencies, professional organizations, and current textbooks. Product pages and app comparisons use official product documentation and current store listings for product facts.
A textbook may help build the fact outline, including a legally obtained local research copy, but PelvicEx links readers only to a publisher, professional body, DOI or bibliographic record, government page, or another legitimate public location. It does not publish local ebook paths or direct readers to unofficial download hosts.
Source authority does not eliminate the need to read critically. Pelvic-floor research can involve small samples, different definitions, combined treatments, inconsistent programmes, and populations that do not generalize to every reader. A guide should preserve those limits instead of citing a respected source as a blanket endorsement.
Originality and copyright
PelvicEx uses sources as evidence, not as reusable copy. The drafting rules are:
- write from a claim outline rather than paraphrasing a source sentence by sentence;
- use original structure, examples, transitions, summaries, and illustrations;
- avoid direct quotations unless a short quotation is essential and legally appropriate;
- never reproduce a source figure, table, screenshot, exercise diagram, or distinctive illustration without permission or a licence that allows the intended use;
- do not translate source passages as a way to bypass copyright;
- cite the underlying idea even when the wording is entirely new;
- run an originality check against consulted passages when source text is available.
Repository-owned guide illustrations are abstract explanatory artwork. They are not copied anatomy plates and should not be mistaken for clinical imaging.
Use of AI-assisted tools
PelvicEx may use generative AI to help inventory topics, organize a source ledger, propose outlines, draft original prose, adapt a draft between languages, check consistency, or find items that need human verification. AI is a tool, not an author, clinician, reviewer, or source.
AI-generated output can sound confident while being inaccurate, incomplete, biased, or based on unattributed material. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors says humans remain responsible for accuracy, attribution, permissions, and plagiarism checks when AI assists publishing. The World Health Organization’s guidance on AI for health emphasizes safety, transparency, accountability, autonomy, and inclusiveness. PelvicEx applies those principles proportionately to public health education; it does not claim that this website is a medical AI system certified under those documents.
AI output must not be treated as evidence. A factual statement needs an appropriate underlying source, and a source link must be opened and checked rather than accepted because a model supplied it. AI must not invent a reviewer, citation, credential, personal experience, product test, or translation approval.
Localization
Localized guides are evidence-equivalent adaptations of the English source, not mechanical translations. They should answer the same question, preserve the same uncertainty and safety thresholds, and avoid adding benefits or instructions absent from the English evidence outline.
Technical terms are introduced naturally in the reader’s language with the English term or acronym where that helps readers recognize clinical language. Examples should make sense in the local context, but localization must not change who should seek care or make a specialist topic sound suitable for self-treatment.
The versions share a stable translation key. A language alternate is published only when the corresponding page exists; PelvicEx should not generate a misleading alternate link to an untranslated page.
Content review standards
The depth of review reflects the topic and potential harm:
- Education and policy: lower-risk educational or policy content may be drafted with AI assistance, but still requires source checking, originality review, language editing, and product verification.
- Clinical evidence: clinically meaningful claims, evidence summaries, or programme design need review by a suitably qualified health professional before PelvicEx describes them as professionally reviewed.
- Safety-sensitive topics: red flags, pain, postoperative care, pregnancy, cancer treatment, bowel dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, and other higher-risk subjects need review by a professional whose expertise matches the topic.
The clinical-review policy explains the relevant expertise, roles, and checks in more detail.
Claim and safety review
Before publication, an editor should verify every substantive medical claim against the source ledger and ask:
- Does the source support this exact population, intervention, comparison, and outcome?
- Is the language stronger than the evidence?
- Does the page accidentally diagnose from symptoms or self-report?
- Does it give a dose or progression that requires individualized assessment?
- Are stop rules, urgent-care signs, and professional-care boundaries prominent enough?
- Could someone with an overactive or painful pelvic floor interpret “more Kegels” as the answer?
- Do the localized pages carry the same caution?
- Do internal links lead to complete, appropriate pages rather than placeholders?
Specialist content requires especially conservative wording, explicit evidence boundaries, and safety routing. Prescriptive programmes and treatment-stage instructions must not be published when unresolved findings could affect safety or meaning.
Product claims and comparisons
Product-policy pages describe current product behaviour and must be checked against the deployed application and actual service configuration. Every claimed capability needs to match what readers can use.
Competitor comparisons use dated official listings and documented criteria. PelvicEx distinguishes a listing review from hands-on testing and does not invent testing, prices, privacy behaviour, or features. Prices and store disclosures can change, so the checked date and region matter. Commercial relationships must be disclosed if they ever exist.
Final publication checks
The publishing check covers frontmatter, source links, evidence IDs, heading hierarchy, image alternatives, keyboard access, responsive layout, canonical URLs, language alternates, structured data, and static build output. It also checks that rendered pages contain no local research paths or unofficial ebook links.
Passing a software build does not validate clinical accuracy. Passing a clinical review does not guarantee that links, translations, or metadata work. Both kinds of review are necessary for their respective claims.
Updates, corrections, and conflicts
A guide’s original publication date is preserved. Its update date changes when its substantive content changes. Re-review is needed when new evidence materially changes the conclusion, a safety recommendation changes, a source is withdrawn, a product feature changes, a translation diverges, or a correction affects clinical meaning.
Material corrections are recorded against the affected page and content version. The editorial workflow checks related claims, sources, translations, and product descriptions so that a correction is applied consistently.
Advertising may fund access but cannot select conclusions, remove cautions, influence editorial decisions, or alter comparisons. The advertising policy applies to every guide.
Policy basis and sources
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Publishing. Current recommendations. Official ICMJE guidance.
- World Health Organization. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health. 2021. Official WHO publication.
- The workflow, content levels, localization rules, copyright safeguards, and product-verification requirements above are PelvicEx editorial decisions. Their value depends on applying and documenting them for each guide.