Last updated: March 2026

Editorial Policy

The GLP-1 Daily is committed to producing accurate, evidence-based content about GLP-1 receptor agonist medications and related health topics. This page explains our editorial process, standards, and the role of artificial intelligence in our content creation.

Our Mission

We exist to make complex clinical research accessible to everyday readers. GLP-1 medications represent one of the most significant developments in weight management and metabolic health, and we believe people deserve clear, honest, and well-sourced information to make informed decisions with their healthcare providers.

AI-Assisted Research Process

We use artificial intelligence tools (including large language models such as Claude by Anthropic) as part of our editorial workflow. Here is how AI fits into our process and where human judgment takes over:

What AI Does

• Initial research and summarization: AI helps us identify relevant clinical studies, summarize findings, and organize complex medical literature into readable formats.
• Draft generation: AI produces initial drafts based on source material, which serve as a starting point for our editorial team.
• Data analysis: AI assists in analyzing study data, comparing outcomes across trials, and identifying trends in the research literature.
• Fact-checking support: AI cross-references claims against published studies and flags potential inconsistencies.

What Humans Do

• Editorial review: Every article is reviewed by a human curator for accuracy and clarity before publication. Curators verify accuracy, tone, completeness, and balance.
• Source verification: Human editors verify that cited studies exist, are accurately represented, and are from reputable sources.
• Medical nuance: Human reviewers assess whether content appropriately communicates risks, side effects, and the limitations of current evidence.
• Editorial judgment: Decisions about what to cover, how to frame topics, and editorial priorities are made by humans.
• Final approval: No content is published without human sign-off.

Content Standards

Evidence-Based Approach

We prioritize evidence from the following sources, in order of reliability:

1. Peer-reviewed clinical trials published in recognized medical journals (e.g., NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Obesity)
2. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that aggregate findings across multiple studies
3. FDA filings, approvals, and labeling information from regulatory agencies
4. Clinical guidelines from established medical organizations (e.g., ADA, Endocrine Society)
5. Expert commentary and analysis from qualified healthcare professionals

We clearly distinguish between strong clinical evidence and preliminary or anecdotal findings. When evidence is limited or conflicting, we say so explicitly.

Source Citation

We cite our sources within articles and link to original studies, regulatory filings, and other primary sources whenever possible. When referencing clinical trial data, we include study identifiers (such as NCT numbers) where available so readers can verify the research independently.

Accuracy and Completeness

• We report both the benefits and risks of medications and treatments.
• We include relevant side effects, contraindications, and limitations of available evidence.
• We do not cherry-pick data to support a predetermined conclusion.
• When studies have significant limitations, we disclose them.
• We distinguish between FDA-approved uses and off-label applications.

Corrections Policy

We take errors seriously. When we identify or are alerted to factual errors in our content, we follow this process:

• Minor corrections (typos, formatting, non-material clarifications) are made directly to the article without a correction notice.
• Material corrections (factual errors, misattributed data, significant omissions) are accompanied by a visible correction notice at the top of the article stating what was changed and when.
• Retractions: In the rare event that an article is found to contain fundamental errors that cannot be corrected, we will retract the article and publish a notice explaining why.

To report an error, please email us at editorial@theglp1daily.com with the article URL and a description of the issue. We review all corrections submissions and respond within five business days.

Independence from Advertisers

Our editorial content is independent of our business relationships. Specifically:

• Affiliate partners and advertisers have no input into our editorial content, ratings, or recommendations.
• We do not accept payment in exchange for favorable coverage.
• Our editorial team is not compensated based on affiliate revenue or advertising performance.
• We cover products and topics for which we have no commercial relationship when they are relevant to our readers.
• If a potential conflict of interest exists, we disclose it within the article.

Content Updates

Medical research evolves. We periodically review and update our published content to ensure it reflects the latest evidence. Articles display a "last updated" date so readers know when the content was most recently reviewed.

Key triggers for content updates include:

• New clinical trial results that materially change our coverage
• FDA approvals, label changes, or safety alerts
• Updated clinical guidelines from major medical organizations
• Reader feedback identifying outdated or inaccurate information

What We Are Not

The GLP-1 Daily is not a medical provider, pharmacy, or licensed healthcare entity. Our content is informational and should never replace a conversation with your doctor. We do not diagnose, treat, or prescribe. See our Terms of Service for our full medical disclaimer.

Contact Our Editorial Team

We welcome feedback, correction reports, and questions about our editorial process. Reach us at editorial@theglp1daily.com.