How we research, review, correct, and communicate claims.

A published page remains Neuvago's editorial responsibility. Automation or AI assistance does not transfer responsibility away from the human editorial process.

Priority pages should have a defined user question, search job, evidence boundary, source set, update expectation, and review level before publication.

Level A sources include authoritative definitions, standards, official regulatory decisions, and primary official documentation.

Level B sources include systematic reviews and meta-analyses, summarized with intervention, population, certainty, heterogeneity, and limitations.

Level C sources include randomized or controlled studies and are described only for the studied population, intervention, protocol, comparator, and outcomes.

Level D sources include mechanistic, imaging, observational, preclinical, or exploratory work and are not presented as proof of clinical benefit.

Product evidence means evidence that directly evaluates Neuvago or a fact supported by controlled Neuvago product documentation.

Method evidence concerns a defined intervention such as implanted VNS, cervical nVNS, tVNS, or auricular taVNS and must retain the exact modality, site, protocol, and population.

General physiology describes anatomy, autonomic function, mechanisms, or associations. A plausible mechanism does not establish a product benefit or clinical outcome.

Material evidence statements should identify whether they concern implanted VNS, cervical non-invasive VNS, transcutaneous VNS, auricular taVNS, or Neuvago.

General VNS or taVNS research is scientific context and is not automatically Neuvago-specific product evidence.

We do not transfer regulatory status, indications, efficacy, safety conclusions, or protocol results between devices, modalities, populations, or markets.

Review requirements increase with risk. High-risk condition, safety, diagnostic, contraindication, or treatment-adjacent content may require a qualified medical or subject-matter specialist.

Where specialist review is required, the record should identify the reviewer, professional role or specialty, relevant qualifications where applicable, jurisdiction, review date, conflict-of-interest declaration, and decision.

Available decisions are approve as written, approve with minor edits, revise and resubmit, or do not release.

A substantive change request should identify the page and section, exact current text, exact replacement or deletion, reason, supporting source or professional rationale, and severity.

Safety-critical, regulatory, evidence, and material factual corrections take priority over stylistic changes.

AI tools may assist with research organization, terminology, source comparison, drafting, localization, metadata work, and consistency checks.

AI output is not treated as an authoritative source and does not qualify as medical, scientific, legal, or regulatory review.

Human editorial responsibility remains with Neuvago, and high-risk publication gates cannot be satisfied by AI review alone.

Neuvago has a direct commercial interest in the Neuvago product and should not hide that interest in research interpretation, buyer guidance, or product comparisons.

Future comparison content should use documented criteria, dated sources, transparent methodology, and a distinction between manufacturer-provided facts, independently verified facts, and editorial judgment.

Regulatory classification, CE status, FDA status, intended use, product specifications, warnings, contraindications, pricing, availability, and warranty are fact-gated information.

Scientific evidence cannot substitute for regulatory authorization, product documentation, or market-specific legal review.