Core Aesthetics owns and publishes its website content. Corey Anderson RN is the named clinical reviewer for health and treatment pages. Original research and current official Australian sources are preferred for material claims. AI may assist with defined editorial tasks, but it is not accepted as evidence and does not make clinical decisions. Material errors are checked against the original source and corrected when they change how a reader should understand the page.
Trust starts with being able to check
Before you rely on a clinic page, you should be able to answer three simple questions: who stands behind the words, what supports the important claims and what happens if something is wrong.
Core Aesthetics keeps those answers visible so you can read with confidence and still bring your own questions to Corey. Website information can make a consultation easier to prepare for, but it does not decide what is suitable for you.
The policy at a glance
A named clinic and reviewer
Core Aesthetics publishes the site. Corey Anderson RN reviews the clinical framing of health and treatment pages.
Original evidence stays visible
Material claims are checked against original research or current official guidance wherever practical.
Assistance, never authority
AI can support defined editorial tasks. It is not evidence, a clinical reviewer or a decision maker.
Important errors are put right
Material errors are verified against the source, corrected and recorded when they change understanding.
Who is responsible for the words?
Core Aesthetics owns and publishes the website. Clinic staff, editorial support, research tools and automation may contribute to the workflow, but responsibility does not move to a contractor or tool.
Corey Anderson RN is the named clinical reviewer for health and treatment content. His role is to check clinical relevance, scope, risk framing and whether general information has been kept separate from personal advice. You can verify Corey and the clinic independently.
A review date records when the clinic checked the page. It is not journal peer review, Ahpra endorsement or TGA approval.
Which sources carry the most weight?
Official Australian sources
Regulators, government agencies and public registers lead for current rules, safety notices and practitioner registration.
Reviews and guidelines
Evidence syntheses and clinical guidance help show consistency, certainty and important gaps across several studies.
Original human research
Original papers and trial records show the people studied, comparison, endpoint, timeframe, funding and limits.
A summary never replaces its source
News reports, search results and clinic summaries can help you find a topic, but they are not the sole support for a material clinical claim. The clinical evidence brief method shows how Core Aesthetics records endpoints, timeframe, funding and uncertainty. The original publication remains the evidence.
How does a claim move from source to page?
The review begins with the question the page needs to answer. For research claims, the clinic checks the population, study design, comparison, endpoint, timeframe and size of the finding. Sample size, missing data, funding, author relationships and whether several papers came from one trial are also considered.
The wording stays inside those limits. A finding about one endpoint is not silently turned into a broader promise, and evidence from one group or timeframe is not assumed to apply to everyone.
Clinical review then checks scope, proportionate risk information, alternatives and referral boundaries. The page should help you form better questions without presenting consultation as a predetermined treatment plan.
How AI may assist, and where it stops
AI and automation may help organise documents, shape a first draft, suggest plain language, prepare accessibility descriptions, check links and identify gaps. They can also invent citations, merge unlike findings or sound certain where the evidence is not.
AI output is never accepted as a clinical source. Material claims are checked against the original paper or official page, Corey and Core Aesthetics remain responsible for publication, and patient identifiable information is excluded from the website content workflow. AI does not decide diagnosis, suitability, dose or treatment.
What else is checked before publication?
| Check | What the reader should see | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Advertising and scope | Product neutral public language, no urgency and no automatic treatment assumption | The page should support an informed choice, not pressure it. |
| Commercial interests | The clinic interest, material sponsorship and relevant study funding are disclosed | Readers can judge evidence and clinic commentary in context. |
| Images and captions | Accurate descriptions without outcome proof, comparison framing or invented patient stories | A photograph should inform or identify, not manufacture evidence. |
| Dates and links | A review date, working source path and revision note where a material change warrants one | Currency and important changes remain visible. |
What happens when something is wrong?
Spelling or formatting issue
Routine presentation errors may be corrected without a public revision note.
A claim changes meaning
The clinic checks the original source, corrects the page and records the reason when readers need that context.
Evidence or guidance changes
Connected claims, links and structured data are reviewed, with a changed interpretation recorded where material.
Report an error with the exact source
Use the Core Aesthetics contact page and include the page URL, exact sentence, what appears wrong and the DOI or official source link where available. The clinic will check the wording against the original record rather than a search snippet.
For a personal care question, contact the clinic directly. For urgent or time critical symptoms, use the appropriate medical pathway rather than an editorial report.
Bring the page into the conversation
If a clinic page has helped you frame a question, you are welcome to bring it to a calm, private consultation with Corey.
Corey can explain what the information does and does not establish, then consider your history, goals and suitability. A consultation can remain an information and questions appointment.
Bring your questions, not a decision
Meet Corey for a clear conversation about what you have read, what matters to you and whether any next step is appropriate.
Questions about our content policy
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.
Sources and review standards
These are the current official and primary standards used for clinical scope, advertising, evidence review, AI governance, conflicts and corrections. They support the policy but do not endorse Core Aesthetics or decide personal suitability.
- 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.