CER-AI

Transparency and medical trust

Medical editorial and evidence policy

Standards for CER-AI's public educational and product-description pages.

Audience and purpose

CER-AI's public clinical material is written for ophthalmologists and refractive surgeons. It explains corneal ectasia screening concepts, named risk systems, Pentacam source fields, tissue-safety concepts and the limits of the software. It is educational information, not patient-specific advice.

Clinical authorship and review

Public clinical content is authored or clinically reviewed by Hüseyin Cengiz, M.D., ophthalmic surgeon and developer of CER-AI. Pages identify the responsible author, review date or software version when that context affects interpretation.

Source selection

Claims are anchored to peer-reviewed medical literature, original descriptions of named risk systems, systematic or major clinical reviews, and manufacturer documentation when a statement concerns a device display or field definition. The source type and its limitations are considered; a manufacturer document is not treated as independent clinical validation.

Evidence boundaries

Evidence supporting a component, index, threshold or named clinical framework does not automatically validate CER-AI as a complete software product. CER-AI does not claim diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, superiority, regulatory authorization or improved patient outcomes unless CER-AI-specific evidence supporting that exact claim is explicitly cited.

Artificial intelligence

AI assists with transcription from supplied Pentacam images. Clinical classifications and tissue-safety calculations are separately implemented in a rule-based assessment engine. Public pages do not describe AI transcription as an autonomous diagnosis or as a substitute for source review and surgeon confirmation.

Updates and corrections

Material is updated when a cited source, documented software behavior, terminology or evidence boundary changes. Decision-relevant corrections are made at the authoritative source in the application or public-content layer rather than being concealed by report-side wording. Sitemap modification dates must reflect genuine content changes.

Separation from patient assessment

The public website and Learning Center do not calculate patient results. Patient-specific assessment remains inside the protected clinical application. Public-content changes do not alter the canonical clinical engine.

Editorial independence: search visibility, advertising or commercial considerations do not change clinical thresholds, source rules, safety constraints or evidence wording.

Clinical author and reviewer: Hüseyin Cengiz, M.D. · Last reviewed: September 11, 2026