Editorial & medical review policy
MeDucation AI publishes educational articles for medical students, residents, and fellows. Each article follows a two-tier review model designed to strengthen accuracy, transparency, and EEAT signals for readers and search quality raters alike.
Two-tier review workflow
Editorial review (first pass)
A medical student performs structured editorial review for clarity, organization, tone, and alignment with cited sources.
Final medical review
A hematology-oncology fellow or attending physician performs final medical review of clinical claims, interpretations, and educational framing.
Source standards
Clinical summaries prioritize consensus guidance (for example NCCN where applicable), high-quality guidelines, and peer-reviewed literature indexed in PubMed. When evidence is evolving or controversial, we aim to label uncertainty explicitly and point learners to primary sources.
Review cadence & updates
Articles display the most recent medical review date when available. Material may be updated when practice-changing evidence or guideline revisions warrant revisions; substantive updates are expected to go through the same two-tier review pathway.
Conflicts of interest
Authors and reviewers disclose relevant financial and organizational relationships. When Dr. Roupen Odabashian authors content, an additional publisher disclosure appears because he is the founder of MeDucation AI.
How reviewers are credited
Reviewers are credited per article (not on individual author profile pages), because medical review applies to the published page and its version history.
Question bank editorial standards
MCQs and assessments follow a separate, physician-led editorial pipeline documented on our standards page.