EDITORIAL POLICY

Content about eye surgery must meet a higher bar than marketing copy. This page explains who writes the content on this site, who checks it, where its numbers come from, and what happens when something needs correcting.

WHO WRITES AND WHO CHECKS

Content is drafted by the RLES AI development team from the platform's own clinical rule set — the same rules that run in the software. Clinical pages are then reviewed by members of the Medical Advisory Board: practising ophthalmic surgeons who contributed to the module the page describes. Each clinical page names its reviewers in the "Medically reviewed by" line under the headline, and every advisor is listed with their explicit written consent. Beyond the module-level review, the content of this website — its wording, its claims and its clinical accuracy as published — is developed and reviewed by Berrin Toksü, MD and Hüseyin Cengiz, MD, Ophthalmologists in Cataract & Refractive Surgery, who serve as the medical editors of the site.

WHERE THE NUMBERS COME FROM

• Clinical thresholds and safety floors come from the peer-reviewed literature and from manufacturers' published tables and official instructions for use — never from guesswork.
• Feature pages carry a references section linking to the original publications on PubMed; where an exact identifier could not be verified, we link to a literature search rather than fabricate a citation.
• Claims about the software describe the current pilot honestly, including its boundaries — what RLES AI does not do (calculate IOL power, recommend lens brands, overrule the surgeon) is stated as plainly as what it does.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Not every number in a RLES AI report has the same kind of backing, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest. Published guidance, a manufacturer's table and a conservative in-house safety margin are three different things. Every rule in the platform therefore carries an evidence level, and the wording on this website follows the same scheme: a sentence that reports the literature and a sentence that describes what RLES AI does are kept apart.

Two consequences follow. Where a consensus defines a criterion but deliberately sets no cut-off, the criterion is attributed to the consensus and the number is attributed to RLES AI. And where a threshold is a Level D safety margin, the page says so in the same sentence — a reader should never have to guess whether a figure came from a journal or from us.

UPDATES AND CORRECTIONS

Every page shows its last update date. Pages are revised when the underlying clinical rules change — the software and the website are kept in step. If you believe something on this site is inaccurate, use the information request form on the home page; reports are reviewed by the team and, where clinical substance is involved, by the advisory board, and corrections are published without undue delay.

ONE BOUNDARY, ALWAYS

This website informs licensed eye care professionals about a clinical decision support tool. It does not give medical advice to patients, and no page on this site should be read as a recommendation for or against any procedure in any individual case — that decision belongs to the treating surgeon.