Science / Standards

Editorial standards

The research desk is educational. It does not diagnose, treat, or replace clinical care.Exhaling publishes notes that a careful reader can check.

Evidence grades

Strong: Multiple independent randomised trials, or a meta-analysis, pointing in the same direction for a specified protocol.
Moderate: Converging systematic reviews plus at least one well-specified trial. Directionally useful, still protocol-sensitive.
Limited: Small, mixed, or loosely specified studies. Honest uncertainty stays in the copy.
Emerging: A single promising study, a well-described tradition, or a mechanistic rationale without adequate trials.

Authorship

Desk notes are signed “Exhaling Research Desk” unless a named contributor writes them. Technique guides are staff-authored from published sources and tradition. Paid coaching inside programs is separate and is never mixed into the public research pages.

Citation

Claims that depend on a paper carry a numbered marker. References include authors, title, source, year, and a DOI or PubMed identifier when one exists. We do not invent study charts. Catalog tables computed from our own pattern data are labeled as such.

Corrections

Factual errors are corrected in place with an updated date. If you find a mis-cited paper or an overstated claim, write to support@exhaling.app.