Core Aesthetics health content is published by the clinic and clinically reviewed by Corey Anderson RN. Current Australian regulator guidance and original research are preferred over summaries. AI may assist with organisation, drafting and quality checks, but it is not treated as a source or clinical decision maker. Material errors are checked against the original source and corrected transparently. Funding, commercial interests, uncertainty, review dates and the limits of clinic authored content are kept visible.
Policy At A Glance
The key accountability details are kept together so readers can inspect them quickly.
| Area | Core Aesthetics policy |
|---|---|
| Publisher | Core Aesthetics in Oakleigh, Victoria |
| Clinical reviewer | Corey Anderson RN, Ahpra registration NMW0001047575 |
| Source standard | Original and official sources are preferred; material claims are checked against the source itself |
| AI use | Permitted as an assistant for defined content tasks, never as evidence or final clinical authority |
| Corrections | Material errors are verified, corrected and recorded when they change understanding |
| Commercial interest | Core Aesthetics is a commercial clinic; material funding and sponsorship are disclosed |
| Policy owner | Core Aesthetics, with clinical accountability held by Corey Anderson RN |
| Last policy review | 13 July 2026 |
Who Writes The Content And Who Is Accountable?
Website content may involve clinic staff, editorial support, research tools and automation. Publication accountability does not move to a tool or contractor. Core Aesthetics owns the page, and Corey Anderson RN is the named clinical reviewer for health and treatment content.
A review date means the clinic checked the page on that date. It is not journal peer review, endorsement by Ahpra, approval by the TGA or a substitute for independent clinical guidance.
Editorial Principles
- Answer the patient question before describing a service.
- Keep evidence, clinical opinion and uncertainty distinguishable.
- Use Australian English and plain language without removing important clinical detail.
- State risks, alternatives, suitability limits and the option of waiting, referral or no treatment.
- Avoid pressure, urgency, exaggerated outcomes and unsupported safety reassurance.
- Link to original or official sources wherever practical.
- Make the author, reviewer, clinic identity and review date easy to check.
- Correct material errors rather than silently defending earlier wording.
Which Sources Carry The Most Weight?
Source quality is judged against the question being answered, not by a single fixed list.
| Priority | Source type | How it is used |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Australian regulators, government agencies and public registers | Rules, safety notices, registration, public health advice and official clinic obligations |
| 2 | Systematic reviews, evidence syntheses and clinical guidelines | Overall direction, certainty, consistency and important evidence gaps |
| 3 | Original peer reviewed human studies and registered trial records | Population, exposure, comparator, endpoint, finding, timeframe and funding |
| 4 | Professional guidance and recognised methods organisations | Interpretation standards, authorship, conflicts and corrections |
| 5 | Tertiary summaries, news reports and search results | Source discovery only; not the sole support for a material clinical claim |
How Evidence Is Interpreted
The clinic records the question, population, exposure, comparison, outcome, timeframe and study design. Endpoint choice matters. Density, thickness, symptom scores and visible change cannot be substituted for one another.
Interpretation also checks sample size, missing data, loss to follow up, prespecified outcomes, generalisability, funding and whether several publications came from one underlying trial. The conclusion is kept inside the limits of the study rather than extended to every patient or many years of use.
What A Clinical Evidence Brief Is Not
A Core Aesthetics clinical evidence brief is a structured clinic education summary. It is not a formal systematic review, clinical practice guideline, independent evidence grading panel or treatment recommendation.
The clinical evidence brief hub explains the method, while each brief links to its main sources and names its limitations. The original publication remains the primary evidence.
Clinical Review And Scope
Clinical review checks whether the page distinguishes general information from personal advice, describes risks without minimising them, keeps suitability subject to assessment and includes appropriate alternatives or referral boundaries.
Corey reviews within his role as a Registered Nurse and the clinic setting. Dental, surgical, diagnostic, emergency or specialist questions should not be stretched into a cosmetic clinic answer. The page should direct readers to a more appropriate pathway when the concern sits outside scope.
Regulatory And Advertising Review
Health content is checked against current TGA requirements and Ahpra guidance for cosmetic procedure advertising. Descriptions stay product neutral where prescription medicines are involved.
Pages should not create urgency, minimise risk, imply universal suitability or present consultation as a predetermined treatment plan. Booking is an appointment request. It does not make treatment automatic.
How AI And Automation May Be Used
AI and automation may assist with source discovery, document organisation, first draft structure, plain language alternatives, accessibility descriptions, navigation links, source link checks and editing checks. These tools can increase consistency and expose gaps, but they can also invent citations, merge unlike findings or write with unjustified confidence.
- AI output is never treated as a clinical source.
- Material claims are checked against the original paper or official page.
- Corey and Core Aesthetics remain responsible for the published wording.
- AI does not decide personal suitability, diagnosis, dose or treatment.
- Patient identifiable information is excluded from the website content workflow.
- Synthetic patient outcome imagery is not used to imply clinical performance.
Why Human Oversight Still Matters
WHO guidance on AI in health emphasises human oversight, transparency, accountability, privacy and the risk that fluent output may still be wrong. The same principle applies here: AI can assist a workflow, but a human must frame the question, inspect the source, judge relevance and own the decision to publish.
Automation is most useful for repeatable checks. It is least trustworthy when asked to fill an evidence gap or turn an uncertain study into a confident clinical answer.
Corrections, Clarifications And Withdrawals
Reported issues are checked against the original source or authoritative record. The response depends on materiality.
| Issue | Action | Public record |
|---|---|---|
| Spelling, formatting or non material style issue | Correct during routine editing | A revision note is usually unnecessary |
| Material factual, clinical, citation or identity error | Verify, correct and reassess connected claims | Record the date, change and reason on the affected page |
| Important new evidence or regulator change | Review the conclusion, linked pages and structured data | Record the changed interpretation where material |
| Unsafe, obsolete or unsupported content | Withdraw, replace or redirect the page | Preserve a clear destination and avoid leaving stale advice live |
Commercial Interests And Sponsored Content
Core Aesthetics is a commercial clinic that offers paid consultations and, where appropriate after assessment, treatment. That is a relevant interest and should not be hidden behind neutral sounding health copy.
Clinical evidence brief conclusions are not sold to product manufacturers or third party brands. If a material sponsorship, paid placement or commercial relationship affects a page, it must be labelled near that content. Manufacturer funding in a cited study is also disclosed when it matters to interpretation. No sponsored clinical evidence brief is currently published.
Image And Caption Standards
Where practical, important trust pages use identifiable practitioner and owned clinic photographs. Educational anatomy or consultation images must be described accurately and cannot be presented as evidence of a patient outcome.
Alt text describes the visible subject. Captions add context or a needed limitation. Comparative outcome imagery, pressure language and synthetic patient depictions are not used as proof of clinic performance.
Review Triggers And Content Currency
Review priority is based on clinical risk and likelihood of change. An earlier review can be triggered by a regulator update, safety notice, material new study, changed clinic or practitioner detail, broken primary source, identified error or a question showing that the current wording is unclear.
When a page cannot be checked promptly and the existing wording may mislead, withdrawal or a temporary replacement is safer than leaving false certainty live.
How To Report A Content Error
Use the Core Aesthetics contact page. Include the page URL, the exact sentence, why you believe it is wrong and the DOI or official source link where available. Patient care or urgent clinical concerns should use the clinic contact pathway rather than an editorial report.
For practitioner identity, use Verify Corey Anderson RN. For the research review method, use Clinical Evidence Briefs.
Policy Sources And Standards
- Ahpra guidelines for registered health practitioners who perform non surgical cosmetic procedures
- Ahpra guidelines for advertising higher risk non surgical cosmetic procedures
- TGA guidance for advertising health services involving therapeutic goods
- NHMRC evidence review process for guidelines or advice
- NHMRC guidance on assessing certainty of evidence
- WHO artificial intelligence and evidence informed policy discussion paper, 2026
- WHO ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health
- ICMJE disclosure of relationships, activities and conflicts of interest
- ICMJE corrections and version control recommendations
Is this for you?
Consider booking a consultation if
- Readers checking who is responsible for Core Aesthetics health content
- People who want the source, AI, corrections and conflict rules stated openly
- Journalists, researchers and patients checking how clinical claims are reviewed
- People reporting a material content or citation error
This may not be for you if
- People seeking a personal diagnosis or treatment recommendation
- Readers treating a clinic policy as a formal systematic review or clinical guideline
- People seeking emergency or time critical clinical advice
- People expecting website information to determine suitability
Suitability is confirmed at consultation. This list is general guidance, not a substitute for clinical assessment.
Frequently asked questions
Who is responsible for Core Aesthetics website content?
Core Aesthetics owns and publishes the website. Corey Anderson RN is the named clinical reviewer for health and treatment content and remains accountable for the clinical framing published by the clinic. His Ahpra registration is NMW0001047575. The review date identifies the clinic review and is not external peer review.
Does Core Aesthetics use AI to help create content?
Yes. AI tools may assist with source discovery, document organisation, first draft structure, accessibility descriptions, reference checking and quality checks. AI output is not accepted as evidence. Claims must be checked against original sources, clinical judgement stays with the practitioner and patient identifiable information is excluded from the website content workflow.
How does Core Aesthetics choose health sources?
Priority goes to current Australian regulator and government sources, registered trial records, peer reviewed systematic reviews and original human studies that directly answer the question. Tertiary summaries can help find a source but are not used as the only support for a material clinical claim.
How are study funding and conflicts handled?
Material manufacturer funding, sponsor involvement and relevant author relationships are disclosed when they affect how a study should be interpreted. Funding does not automatically invalidate research, but several papers from one sponsored trial are not described as independent replication.
What happens when Core Aesthetics finds a content error?
The clinic checks the claim against the original source. Material factual, clinical, citation or identity errors are corrected and the reason is recorded on the affected page when it changes how the content should be understood. Minor spelling or formatting changes may be corrected without a revision note. Unsafe or obsolete content can be withdrawn.
How often is health content reviewed?
Pages display a review date and are checked according to clinical risk and change likelihood. A material new study, regulator update, safety notice, clinic detail change or identified source error can trigger an earlier review. A date shows when the page was checked; it does not make the page current forever.
Can a company pay to influence a Core Aesthetics evidence brief?
Clinical evidence brief conclusions are not sold to product manufacturers or third party brands. Core Aesthetics is a commercial clinic and that interest is stated openly. Any material sponsorship or paid editorial relationship would need clear labelling near the content. No sponsored clinical evidence brief is currently published.
Can website content decide whether treatment is suitable for me?
No. Website content can explain evidence, risks, alternatives and questions to ask, but suitability requires an individual consultation. Booking does not make treatment automatic. Waiting, referral or no treatment can be the appropriate advice after assessment.