Our articles translate a fast-moving mix of papers, trial records, patents, company claims, and public debate. This page explains who is behind the bylines, how evidence is handled, and what happens when the record changes.
Each byline should tell readers which part of TrichoLens owns the work. When an article has a named outside contributor or specialist review, that person and role should be identified on the article itself.
Reporting byline
Used for source-led coverage of hair and scalp science, treatments, clinical programs, companies, and disputed claims.
Product byline
Used for articles about TrichoLens software, imaging workflows, technical implementation, integrations, and product capabilities.
Internal review function
Checks claim-to-source fit, attribution, terminology, dates, uncertainty, and boundaries before publication and when a material update is made.
Commercial-context review
Reviews partnership, integration, and product-market statements when those claims appear in TrichoLens product coverage.
A careful article is less about sounding certain and more about preserving the chain between a sentence and the evidence beneath it.
We define the claim being tested before collecting material, so an article does not quietly switch from one question to an easier one.
We look first for trial registries, papers, regulator records, patents, filings, labels, and attributable company disclosures. Access dates are retained with the article.
Disclosed results, sponsor claims, calculations, hypotheses, and unresolved questions are written as different kinds of statements.
The review pass checks whether citations support the nearby claim, whether status language is current, and whether uncertainty and safety boundaries are visible.
The article carries publication and review dates. Material new records or factual corrections can trigger an update after publication.
A source can establish only what it actually contains. A mechanism paper cannot prove a clinical outcome, and a financing announcement cannot prove efficacy.
Regulator records, trial registries, filings, labels, patents, protocols, and full papers.
Company releases, presentations, interviews, and investigator statements—clearly labeled as claims.
Credible reporting and expert explanation used to add context, not overwrite the primary record.
Posts and anecdotes can reveal a question worth checking. They are not treated as clinical evidence.
Software-assisted tools may help organize research, transcribe source material, support drafting or translation, create illustrations, or power an interactive explainer. A tool output is never treated as a source.
Interactive diagrams and editorial illustrations explain a concept; they are not laboratory observations. The article's captions should identify source figures and distinguish them from illustrations.
Material factual corrections and meaningful new evidence can change an article's reviewed or updated date. When a reader needs the history to understand the change, the article should include a correction or update note. Quiet fixes to spelling, punctuation, layout, or broken links may not receive a separate note.
A later company statement does not automatically erase an earlier public record. Where accounts conflict, we preserve attribution and explain what changed.
Include the article URL, the passage in question, and a direct link to the relevant paper, filing, registry record, or other primary material. We will assess it against the published record.