Editorial Policy

 

Editorial Policy

AI Healthcare Insight (AIHCI)
Published by ScholarGen Inc.
Editorial Policy — Last Updated: September 2026

1. Our Mission

AI Healthcare Insight (AIHCI) is an independent medical and technology publication dedicated to exploring the responsible use of artificial intelligence in healthcare.

Our coverage focuses primarily on:

  • Artificial intelligence in medicine
  • Medical imaging and radiology
  • Clinical AI and decision-support technologies
  • Digital health and healthcare informatics
  • Medical imaging infrastructure and workflow
  • Healthcare data, interoperability, and standards
  • AI-assisted diagnosis and treatment
  • Medical technology research and innovation
  • Clinical, technical, ethical, and operational aspects of healthcare AI

Our goal is to connect scientific knowledge, engineering innovation, and clinical practice through original, evidence-informed editorial content.

AIHCI is intended primarily for healthcare professionals, researchers, engineers, educators, students, technology professionals, and readers interested in the development and responsible implementation of healthcare AI.

2. Publisher and Editorial Responsibility

AI Healthcare Insight is published by ScholarGen Inc.

Editor-in-Chief and General Supervisor
Dr. Sang-bock Lee, M.D., Ph.D.
ScholarGen Inc.

The publisher is responsible for maintaining the editorial standards, accuracy, transparency, and integrity of content published on AIHCI.

Editorial contributors may include physicians, medical researchers, engineers, scientists, healthcare professionals, and subject-matter specialists.

Where an article involves specialized clinical or technical issues, appropriate subject-matter expertise is considered during the editorial process.

3. Authorship and Editorial Review

AIHCI identifies the author or principal contributor of published articles whenever applicable.

Authors and contributors are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the material they provide.

Editorial review may include:

  1. Verification of important factual and technical claims.
  2. Review of medical terminology and clinical context.
  3. Assessment of cited scientific literature and external sources.
  4. Review of figures, tables, and explanatory material when applicable.
  5. Identification of statements that represent interpretation, commentary, or future projections.
  6. Editorial revision for clarity, accuracy, and reader understanding.

The level of review may vary according to the nature and complexity of an article. Not every article is formally peer-reviewed in the manner of a scientific journal.

AIHCI does not represent ordinary editorial articles as peer-reviewed scientific publications unless they have actually undergone formal peer review.

4. Use of Artificial Intelligence

AI Healthcare Insight recognizes that artificial intelligence can be used as an editorial and research-support technology.

AI-based tools may assist with activities such as:

  • Literature organization
  • Information structuring
  • Language editing
  • Translation
  • Draft development
  • Data organization
  • Technical brainstorming
  • Image or figure preparation
  • Identification of topics requiring additional verification

However, AI-generated or AI-assisted material is not automatically considered authoritative or factually correct.

Editorial contributors remain responsible for reviewing AI-assisted material before publication. Important medical, scientific, statistical, and technical claims should be independently evaluated and supported by appropriate evidence whenever possible.

AIHCI does not intentionally publish unreviewed AI-generated material as established medical fact.

5. Originality and Added Editorial Value

AIHCI aims to publish original editorial analysis rather than simply reproduce information available elsewhere.

External sources may be used for research, background information, quotations, scientific evidence, statistics, or reference purposes. When external material contributes substantially to an article, appropriate attribution or citation is provided.

AIHCI does not intentionally publish copied articles, scraped material, or minimally modified versions of third-party content as original editorial work.

Our editorial objective is to add value through interpretation, synthesis, clinical context, technical explanation, comparison, or independent commentary.

6. Sources and Evidence

Where appropriate, AIHCI articles may reference:

  • Peer-reviewed scientific literature
  • Medical and scientific journals
  • Professional medical organizations
  • Government and public-health agencies
  • Recognized academic institutions
  • International standards organizations
  • Official regulatory or technical documentation
  • Original research and authoritative datasets

The strength and availability of evidence may differ between topics.

When evidence is limited, preliminary, controversial, or based primarily on emerging technology, AIHCI seeks to distinguish established findings from hypotheses, projections, and editorial interpretation.

References are provided when they materially support the scientific or medical claims discussed in an article.

7. Medical Information and Disclaimer

AI Healthcare Insight provides educational and informational content.

Our articles are not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

Medical information presented on AIHCI should not be interpreted as an individualized medical recommendation. Clinical decisions should be made by appropriately licensed healthcare professionals who can evaluate the complete clinical circumstances of an individual patient.

Medical knowledge changes over time. Readers should consult current professional guidelines, primary scientific literature, and qualified healthcare professionals when making clinical decisions.

AIHCI does not guarantee that information published on the website will remain current after its original publication date.

8. Accuracy, Corrections, and Updates

Accuracy is an important editorial priority.

If we identify a factual error, misleading statement, outdated statistic, incorrect citation, or material ambiguity, we may revise the affected content.

Substantive corrections may include:

  • Correcting factual errors
  • Updating scientific or technical information
  • Replacing outdated references
  • Clarifying ambiguous statements
  • Correcting figures or captions
  • Adding relevant context or limitations

When appropriate, articles may display an updated or revised date.

Readers who identify a possible factual or editorial error are encouraged to contact AIHCI so that the editorial team can investigate the issue.

9. Conflicts of Interest and Commercial Relationships

AIHCI seeks to maintain editorial independence.

Authors and contributors should disclose material relationships that could reasonably affect the interpretation of an article, including relevant financial, professional, research, consulting, or commercial relationships.

Sponsored, promotional, affiliate, or commercially supported material, when published, should be clearly identified so that readers can distinguish it from independent editorial content.

Editorial decisions should not be determined solely by advertising relationships or commercial interests.

10. Editorial Independence

Advertising and editorial content are treated as separate functions.

The presence or absence of advertising does not determine whether a scientific, medical, or technological topic is selected for coverage.

AIHCI does not guarantee favorable editorial treatment to advertisers, sponsors, technology companies, healthcare organizations, or other commercial entities.

Where an article discusses a commercial product, company, platform, or technology, relevant limitations and available evidence should be considered as part of the editorial process.

11. Images, Figures, and Third-Party Material

Images, figures, diagrams, screenshots, and other visual materials are used for educational and editorial purposes.

AIHCI seeks to respect copyright and intellectual-property rights.

Where third-party material is used, AIHCI aims to identify the source and provide appropriate attribution or permission when required.

Original diagrams, explanatory figures, and editorial visualizations may be created or substantially modified to improve understanding.

12. Editorial Board and Contributors

AI Healthcare Insight works with medical, scientific, engineering, and healthcare professionals whose expertise may contribute to the development or review of specialized content.

Current editorial leadership and contributing professionals may include:

  • Dr. Sang-bock Lee  — Editor-in-Chief & General Supervisor, ScholarGen Inc.
  • Dr. Hoon-jae Lee, Ph.D.
  • Dr. Gil-jae Lee, Ph.D.
  • Dr. Ki-ppeum Park, M.D.
  • Dr. Krunal Panchal 
  • Dr. Urazboev Ikromjon Erkinovich
  • Dr. Ken Karl Zhang 

Participation in the editorial network does not necessarily mean that every contributor has reviewed every article published on AIHCI.

Individual articles may identify the specific author, contributor, reviewer, or editorial role involved.

13. Reader Feedback

AIHCI welcomes constructive feedback from readers, healthcare professionals, researchers, engineers, and other subject-matter experts.

Readers may contact the publication regarding:

  • Factual errors
  • Incorrect or outdated references
  • Medical or technical inaccuracies
  • Copyright concerns
  • Attribution issues
  • Conflicts of interest
  • Other significant editorial concerns

Reported issues are reviewed by the editorial team and may result in clarification, correction, update, or removal when appropriate.

14. Transparency

AI Healthcare Insight seeks to provide readers with sufficient information to understand:

  • Who publishes the content
  • Who authored or contributed to an article
  • When an article was published or updated
  • What evidence or sources support important claims
  • Whether content represents established evidence or editorial interpretation
  • Whether material relationships or sponsorships are relevant

Our editorial policies may be updated as medical knowledge, technology, publishing standards, and applicable policies evolve.

15. Contact

For editorial questions, corrections, source verification, copyright concerns, or other publication-related matters, please contact:

AI Healthcare Insight (AIHCI)
Published by ScholarGen Inc.

Editorial & General Inquiries:
office@scholargen.com

Editorial inquiries may be directed through the contact information provided on the AI Healthcare Insight website.

© 2026 AI Healthcare Insight & ScholarGen Inc. All rights reserved.

AI Healthcare Insight is an independent editorial publication of ScholarGen Inc. Its content is provided for educational and informational purposes and does not constitute individualized medical advice.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why accuracy alone is not enough—and how clinical validation, external testing, human-AI interaction, generalizability, and lifecycle monitoring determine whether medical AI is ready for patient care

Image
Clinical AI Validation: Why Accuracy Alone Is Not Enough Author: Dr. SB Lee An artificial intelligence model can achieve impressive performance in a development dataset and still fail to deliver reliable clinical value. That distinction is at the heart of Clinical AI Validation . A model may demonstrate excellent sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), or segmentation accuracy under controlled experimental conditions. Yet these numbers do not automatically establish that the system is safe, generalizable, clinically useful, or appropriate for deployment in a hospital. The real question is not simply: “How accurate is the AI?” The more important question is: “Does the AI remain reliable when real clinicians use it on real patients in real clinical environments?” Clinical AI validation therefore represents a transition from algorithm evaluation to clinical evidence generation . This distinction is particularly important in medical ...
Read more

FDA-Cleared Medical AI Accuracy: Why the Most Accurate AI Is Not the Most Valuable in Healthcare

Image
A Deep Clinical, Technical, and Economic Analysis of AI Performance Across Radiology, Pathology, and Cardiology Edited by ScholarGen AiHealthcareInsight Team Abstract The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has fundamentally reshaped diagnostic workflows, clinical decision-making, and hospital economics. However, a widespread misconception persists: that FDA-cleared AI systems represent the highest-performing or most accurate technologies available. In reality, regulatory clearance pathways such as the 510(k) process primarily evaluate safety and substantial equivalence rather than clinical superiority. This paper provides a comprehensive, high-resolution analysis of FDA-cleared medical AI systems across major domains, including radiology, pathology, cardiology, and endoscopy. It evaluates diagnostic accuracy using sensitivity, specificity, and AUC metrics while also examining real-world clinical impact, workflow integration, and return on investment (ROI). The...
Read more

Building Trustworthy Medical AI: Explainability, Validation, and Regulatory Readiness

Image
  by Ph. D. Giljae Lee Artificial intelligence can achieve an impressive area under the ROC curve and still fail the most important test in medicine: whether a clinician can safely use its output in a real patient, under real workflow constraints, with consequences that extend beyond the model's benchmark dataset. Consider a radiology department deploying an AI system for pulmonary embolism detection. The algorithm may demonstrate excellent retrospective sensitivity, but what happens when scanners are upgraded, acquisition protocols change, contrast timing differs, or the emergency department begins sending a different patient population? If the system generates dozens of low-value alerts, radiologists may eventually stop paying attention. If an explanation highlights an anatomically plausible region that is not actually responsible for the prediction, the visualization may create false reassurance rather than transparency . This is why trustworthy medical AI cannot be reduced to a...
Read more