Editorial policy

What this policy covers

This policy applies to GutBloom’s public educational articles. The blog helps readers organise and interpret food-and-symptom observations more carefully. It does not provide diagnosis, personalised medical advice, treatment instructions or universal lists of foods to avoid.

Source hierarchy

We use the strongest source suitable for each claim. In descending order, we prefer:

1. Current clinical guidelines, consensus statements, systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
2. Government health agencies, regulators, official statistics and recognised academic or clinical institutions.
3. Original peer-reviewed studies and official datasets, with their design and limitations preserved.
4. Professional associations and expert-authored educational resources with clear credentials, review processes and sources.
5. Reputable reporting for discovery or context, while linking the underlying research for the claim.

Anonymous health blogs, affiliate pages, content farms, unsourced aggregators, search snippets and AI-generated answers are not treated as evidence.

Research and claim checking

Each article starts with a defined reader question, search intent, useful outcome, scope and risk level. Material health and quantitative claims are mapped to a source before drafting. We open and read the source, check its population, method, date and limits, and search for conflicting evidence, corrections or retractions.

Claims are kept no stronger than their evidence. Association, hypothesis, anecdote and causation are identified separately. Important limitations appear beside the affected claim rather than being hidden in a general disclaimer. Source links are rechecked before publication.

Health-risk classification

• Low risk: diary organisation, logging technique and product-neutral observation methods.
• Moderate risk: symptoms, timing, prevalence, food components, or interpretation of health research. These articles require authoritative sourcing and explicit uncertainty.
• High risk: diagnosis, treatment, medication, allergy, serious disease, restrictive diets, nutrient deficiency, pregnancy, children or material that could change care. These topics are narrowed, deferred for genuine professional review, or rejected.

Risk reflects possible reader harm, not how confidently a source is written. We do not reduce a classification to make publication easier.

How AI assistance is used

GutBloom may use AI-assisted tools for research organisation, outlining, drafting, editing, link checking and technical publishing. AI output is not accepted as evidence and does not replace reading the original source. Every article must pass the same source, safety, claims and publication checks regardless of which tools assisted the work.

We do not invent authors, credentials, reviewers, quotations, patient stories, testimonials or endorsements. A generated editorial character may appear as disclosed illustration, but is never represented as a real author, editor, clinician or reviewer.

How professional review is identified

Professional review is shown only when a genuine qualified person has reviewed the article’s relevant claims and agreed to be named. Their name, role, profile link and review status appear on the article. A reviewer’s participation applies only to the stated article and does not imply endorsement of GutBloom or every article on the site.

If an article has not received professional review, it says so. Editorial or automated checks must not be described as medical review.

Publication and update dates

Every article displays its original publication date. An updated date changes only after a meaningful editorial revision, such as refreshed evidence, corrected claims, changed safety guidance or substantial improvements to the article. Styling, spelling or metadata-only changes do not require the visible update date to change.

The structured article data carries both the publication and modification dates. Time-sensitive claims are checked against current sources when an article is materially updated.

Corrections policy

Readers can report a possible error or unclear claim at support@gutbloom.de. Please include the article URL and the passage in question.

We assess the original source and any stronger or newer evidence. Material errors are corrected promptly, the modification date is updated, and the affected wording is made accurate rather than merely softened. Minor typographical corrections may be made without a notice. If an article can no longer be supported safely, it will be substantially revised, withdrawn or redirected.