Editorial, corrections, and review policy

We prefer regulators and official labels for legal status; trial registries or operators for enrollment; peer-reviewed papers for research results; and clearly attributed sponsor pages for development claims. News and social posts can identify leads but should not become the sole authority for a medical or regulatory claim.

A developer is the primary source for its own program description but has a commercial conflict. We label sponsor-reported information, link the original page, and state what the source does not independently prove.

“Editorial review” means source and wording review by the Atlas editorial team. It does not mean veterinary review. We will name a veterinarian, credentials, scope, and review date only after that person has actually reviewed the page. Until then, pages must not imply clinical endorsement. Our veterinary review standard defines credential checks, conflicts, page-level scope, correction handling, and re-review triggers.

Time-sensitive status claims include a last-checked date. Approval, availability, price, enrollment, and safety communications should be rechecked after a known event and on a recurring schedule. An old “latest” claim is an error even if it was once true.

Material errors should be corrected promptly and the substantive change recorded with its date. Readers, researchers, veterinarians, and sponsors can submit a correction with a source. Commercial pressure does not determine whether a correction is accepted.

We are not affiliated with Loyal or the Dog Aging Project. Sponsorship, affiliate relationships, or lead-generation compensation must be disclosed near affected content and must not determine evidence ratings or editorial conclusions.