Editorial policy
Our editorial
standards.
Clear answers, sources you can check, and people you can contact when something needs correcting.
WBF helps people understand brain fog. Our responsibility is to explain the research clearly, show where the evidence is limited, and keep the information useful.
People and responsibility
Editorial work and medical review.
The editorial team is responsible for researching, writing, sourcing, updating and maintaining WBF. Medical review is a separate role.
Where a page says it has been clinically reviewed, the reviewer checks its medical claims, descriptions of tests and treatments, and important limitations. The review should not imply more certainty than the evidence supports.
Sources and judgment
The evidence must support the claim.
We start with the question a page needs to answer, then review the relevant medical literature. We look for findings that change the answer, add a useful distinction or correct older information.
We check who took part, what the study measured and what it can actually show. Newer research is not automatically better research.
How we assess evidence
Different claims need different evidence. Current clinical guidance is often the best guide to checking for or treating a condition. Randomized trials are useful for treatment questions. Diagnostic studies are useful for tests. Systematic reviews can show whether findings hold across several studies. Mechanistic research can explain biology without proving that the same mechanism is causing someone's symptoms.
Who was studied?
A finding in one disease, age group, or clinical population is not automatically evidence for everyone with brain fog.
What was measured?
A change in a blood test result, scan, questionnaire, or laboratory task isn't automatically the same as clearer thinking in ordinary life.
What does the design allow us to say?
An association, a biological mechanism, and a treatment effect are different claims. We try not to write one as though it proves another.
Is stronger evidence available?
We look for newer guidance, larger studies, conflicting results, corrections, and evidence that weakens an older confident claim.
What uncertain evidence and our labels mean
Brain fog research ranges from established clinical evidence to early human studies and plausible biological ideas. The wording should make that difference clear.
A promising mechanism is not described as a proven cause. An association is not written as causation. A research-only measurement is not presented as a routine clinical test. An early treatment result is not described as established care. Where good studies disagree, we should show the disagreement rather than choose the most dramatic result.
Some WBF pages use short evidence labels to make large amounts of research easier to scan. Those labels are our own shorthand and don't replace the study details or a formal medical grading system. We should still explain the important limitation in the page itself.
Reader experience
Real questions matter.
People's questions and everyday examples help us recognise what explanations are confusing or missing. Personal experiences improve our language and point us toward questions worth researching.
They are not proof that a treatment works or that a condition caused someone's symptoms.
Corrections and updates
Help us get it right.
We can get things wrong. When we find an inaccurate claim, misleading explanation, outdated source or important omission, we correct the page. Priority health pages are also revisited when stronger evidence or new clinical guidance changes the answer.
An update may mean removing a claim or replacing older guidance. It does not have to make the page longer.
Found something we should check?
Email the page link, the sentence in question and any source that helps explain the issue.
Report an errorhello@whatisbrainfog.comEditorial independence
Funding does not decide the answer.
Optional reader contributions support WBF as a whole. They do not buy medical advice or editorial influence. We label paid supporter listings and separate them from health guidance.
Any future advertising, sponsorship or affiliate arrangement should be disclosed clearly and kept separate from editorial judgment.
See how WBF is funded