AARO LAB™
Back to the Science Hub

Editorial policy

Scientific Editorial Policy

AARO LAB publishes an open, independent Science Hub. This page details the editorial methodology applied to every scientific dossier: mission, principles, evidence hierarchy, sources, updating process, limitations and transparency.

AARO LAB (also searched as AAROLAB) is the official brand of the Science Hub publisher.

1. Mission

The Science Hub exists to make accessible, in clear scientific English, the biological mechanisms studied in the field of tissue integrity and microvascularization. It targets an informed lay readership and never substitutes for a medical consultation.

2. Editorial principles

  • Neutrality: no scientific dossier promotes an AARO LAB product. Science pages and product pages are editorially disjoint.
  • Independence: editorial decisions are made internally, without external commercial influence.
  • Evidence first: every clinical statement is linked to an identifiable reference (DOI, PMID) and graded with an EvidenceBadge.
  • Prudence: preclinical and in-vitro findings are labelled as such and never presented as clinical recommendations.
  • Transparency about limits: what is not yet established is named as such.

3. Evidence hierarchy

AARO LAB follows the standard evidence-based medicine hierarchies. When guidelines from learned societies (AUA, EAU, HAS, NICE, etc.) exist, they take precedence over individual publications.

  1. 1Meta-analysis
  2. 2Systematic review
  3. 3Randomized controlled trial (RCT)
  4. 4Prospective cohort
  5. 5Retrospective cohort
  6. 6Case series
  7. 7Case report
  8. 8Preclinical (in vivo)
  9. 9In vitro
  10. 10Expert opinion

The 'preclinical' and 'in vitro' levels represent mechanistic evidence, not clinical efficacy.

4. Scientific sources

  • PubMed / MEDLINE — primary database, indexed by PMID.
  • DOI — persistent identifier for every cited publication.
  • MeSH — controlled vocabulary for thematic indexing.
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines — AUA, EAU, HAS, NICE, ESC, etc.
  • Consensus Statements — learned societies and expert panels.
  • Clinical trial registries — ClinicalTrials.gov, EU CTR.

5. Updating process

  1. Creation: written from a search-intent map and a bibliographic review.
  2. Review: editorial checks and reference verification.
  3. Publication: brought online with a `datePublished` timestamp.
  4. Revision: each dossier is reviewed at least once a year, or whenever a major publication is released.
  5. Correction: any reported error is corrected and the `dateModified` timestamp is updated.

6. Limitations

  • The Science Hub does not issue any medical diagnosis.
  • It does not replace a consultation with a healthcare professional.
  • Science evolves — some hypotheses presented here may be revised.
  • Dossiers are written for a non-specialist audience; they do not carry the full detail of a systematic review.

7. Transparency on evidence levels

  • Established evidence — Consistent result demonstrated across several well-conducted clinical studies or included in learned-society guidelines.
  • Limited evidence — Signal suggested by a small number of clinical studies, heterogeneous or statistically underpowered.
  • Preclinical findings — Data obtained in vivo (animal) or in vitro. Useful to understand a mechanism, insufficient to conclude for humans.
  • Mechanistic hypothesis — A coherent explanatory model that has not yet been experimentally demonstrated.
See the sources & methodology