Women's-health content sits in a difficult place. The internet is full of confidently wrong information about ferritin, thyroid, perimenopause and what the labs are supposed to mean — much of it generated quickly, cited loosely, and reviewed by no-one in particular. Heme exists to be different, and the way you can tell the difference is who reads the page before you do.
That's the entire point of named medical reviewers. Not a sticker. Not a "reviewed by our medical team" line at the bottom of a footer. A real person, with real credentials, who has read the page, raised flags where the evidence is mixed, and signed it off. We publish their name, their qualifications, the areas they cover, and the date of their last review. If something on a Heme page is wrong — or oversteps into territory that should be an individual clinical conversation, not a public article — that's on a person with a license to lose. We think that changes how the writing happens. We know it changes how the reading should feel.
The reviewer panel.
Four clinicians cover the four areas where Heme makes the most claims: reproductive bloodwork, common-symptom hubs, endocrine and metabolic pages, and the nutritional-status guides. Each profile below is a placeholder during launch — bios will be replaced with contracted reviewers across Q2 2026.
Dr. [Name], MD, FACOG
Reviews all pages covering reproductive bloodwork, the menstrual cycle, perimenopause and fertility. Sign-off authority on biomarker pages where pregnancy or contraceptive context materially changes the interpretation of a result.
[Name], MSN, WHNP-BC
Reviews symptom-hub pages — fatigue, heavy periods, postpartum recovery, hormonal acne — and the patient-experience side of test-comparison content. WHNPs see the volume of women's-health bloodwork that specialists don't, and the panel benefits from that calibration.
Dr. [Name], MD, FACE
Reviews thyroid, insulin, cortisol and the modern cardiometabolic panel (ApoB, Lp(a), hsCRP, fasting insulin). Final word on pages that interpret hormonal patterns across the cycle and the perimenopause transition.
[Name], RD, LD, IFNCP
Reviews nutritional-status pages — iron and ferritin, B12, vitamin D — and the supplement-comparison editorial. RD review is what keeps Heme honest about the difference between deficiency repletion and supplement marketing.
How review works.
The same five steps run for every medical page before it goes live, and again at the annual re-review. No shortcuts on this part — the speed has to come from the editorial side, never the clinical one.
-
Editorial drafts to clinical brief.The Heme writer drafts to a published clinical brief that flags the claims a reviewer must verify, the sources cited, and any compliance-language passes (no diagnostic claims; no individual treatment recommendations).
-
Internal editor pass.The reviews editor confirms the piece meets Heme's editorial standards — sources verified, language appropriate, structure clean — before it goes to the clinical reviewer. We don't send half-built drafts to clinicians.
-
Named clinical reviewer.The relevant reviewer reads the full piece. They flag claims that are too strong, evidence that's evolving, ranges or numbers that need a caveat, and any places where the writing crosses into individualised advice.
-
Resolution and sign-off.Heme revises against the reviewer's notes. Where a flag can't be resolved, the claim comes out — even if the piece is weaker for it. Final sign-off is on the reviewer, with name, credentials and date recorded.
-
Annual re-review and version log.Every clinical page is re-checked annually against current guidance — guidelines move, evidence updates, and "last reviewed" without a real re-review is editorial theatre. The version log is public.
What "reviewed" means at Heme.
Worth being precise about the limits, because "medically reviewed" gets used loosely on the internet. Here is exactly what our reviewers do and don't do.
What reviewers do
- Check that the medical content on the page is factually accurate against current peer-reviewed evidence and clinical guidelines.
- Flag claims that are too strong for the underlying evidence, and require softening to "may," "could," or "worth discussing."
- Ensure safety-relevant content (red-flag symptoms, when to escalate to in-person care) is present and prominent.
- Verify that reference ranges and biomarker thresholds match the lab and clinical standards Heme cites.
- Sign off in writing, by name, with credentials and review date logged on the page itself.
What reviewers don't do
- Provide individual medical advice to readers. No reviewer is the reader's doctor. The page is editorial, not clinical.
- Interpret an individual reader's lab results. We don't review submitted bloodwork — that's a conversation for the reader's own clinician.
- Diagnose, prescribe, or recommend specific treatment plans for individual readers, even via email or social channels.
- Endorse any particular at-home test, supplement, telehealth platform or brand. Editorial scoring runs through Heme's published methodology, not the reviewer panel.
- Replace the reader's primary care provider, OB-GYN, endocrinologist or other in-person clinical relationship. Heme is a layer above care decisions — never a substitute for them.
If you are weighing a real clinical question — abnormal labs, persistent symptoms, a new diagnosis — please bring it to a clinician who knows you. The role of Heme, and of our reviewer panel, is to help you walk into that appointment better informed. That's the whole job.
Read the full editorial standards
How Heme writes, fact-checks, corrects and keeps the editorial firewall intact. Published openly.