1. Source provenance
Record where the question, paper, image, guideline or teaching material originated and distinguish original source wording from MedMinds reconstruction.
MedMinds separates source provenance, evidence checking, consultant clinical review, media rights and publication status. A named reviewer is displayed on an individual question, station, note or update only when that review has been explicitly recorded for that item or defined review set.
Record where the question, paper, image, guideline or teaching material originated and distinguish original source wording from MedMinds reconstruction.
Check worked answers, marking scripts and explanations against appropriate references. Automated or AI-assisted checks are labelled separately from human clinical review.
Clinical reviewers assess the content within their relevant scope. The reviewer, date and scope are recorded rather than applying a blanket reviewer badge to the entire platform.
Images, documents, audio, video and imported examination assets are tracked in a rights ledger with ownership, permission, licence or unresolved-evidence status.
Content moves through draft, in review, clinically reviewed, published, needs revision or retired states. A reviewer is required before the governance registry can mark content clinically reviewed or published.
Reviewed content receives a next-review date. Items can be returned to needs revision when guidance, exam standards, clinical practice or source rights change.
Clinical review network
MedMinds content has been reviewed by several clinicians and consultants. The directory below lists reviewers whose public profiles have been entered into the editorial registry. Additional reviewers can be added as their details and review scopes are formally mapped.
Pulmonology Physician
Department of Internal Medicine
Livingstone University Teaching Hospital
Clinical consultant reviewer in Internal Medicine and pulmonology. Individual content items show this reviewer only when that review has been specifically recorded in the MedMinds editorial registry.
Institutional affiliations identify the reviewer’s professional context. They do not, by themselves, imply that the reviewer’s employer or department formally endorses MedMinds.