Veterinary Editorial Team & Pet Content Review Process

How we produce, source, and review the pet-supplements section (/products/pets/). Honest disclosure on AI assistance, the limits of our process, and the human and veterinary signals we rely on.

What this team is — and isn't

The Veterinary Editorial Team is the internal review group at dietarysupplement.ai responsible for sourcing, fact-checking, and structuring the pet content under /products/pets/.

We are not a clinic. We do not diagnose pets, do not prescribe supplements, and do not have a vet-patient relationship with any reader. We summarize published evidence and translate it into owner-readable guidance with weight-based dosing examples.

Sources we anchor to

Every pet article is anchored to evidence from the following bodies:

AVMA — American Veterinary Medical Association policy and clinical guidelines.
ACVIM — American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine consensus statements (especially for kidney, cardiac, and endocrine topics).
AAHA — American Animal Hospital Association guidelines (nutrition, pain management, senior care).
NASC — National Animal Supplement Council quality program. We recommend NASC-seal products as a baseline quality signal.
WSAVA — World Small Animal Veterinary Association nutrition recommendations.
Peer-reviewed veterinary journals: JAVMA, JFMS, JVIM, JVECC, JSAP, and equine-specific journals where relevant.
Human RCTs only when explicitly flagged as extrapolated. We do not silently translate human evidence to pets.

AI-assistance disclosure

Pet articles are drafted with AI assistance (Claude by Anthropic, with image generation by Google Gemini) against a strict editorial system prompt that requires:

Prominent recommendation to consult a licensed veterinarian.
Weight-based dosing with concrete examples for common weight ranges.
Species-specific toxicity warnings (e.g., xylitol/grapes for dogs, lilies/essential oils for cats).
Honest distinction between target-species RCTs and human-data extrapolation.
"May support" / "evidence suggests" language — never "cures" or "treats".

Every article is rendered with a banner indicating its content is AI-assisted, and the FAQ-style structure prioritizes the questions pet owners actually ask their vets.

What the team does not guarantee

We do not guarantee that a supplement is safe or appropriate for your specific pet.
We do not guarantee that evidence summarized today still reflects the latest consensus tomorrow — veterinary literature moves.
We do not endorse specific brand-name products. We describe quality markers (NASC seal, third-party testing, form, transparent labeling).
We do not provide drug-interaction lookups against your pet's specific prescriptions — your vet has that context.

How to report errors

If you are a veterinarian, vet tech, animal-nutrition researcher, or an attentive pet owner who spots a factual error, dose error, contradicted claim, or missing safety warning, please email corrections via our contact page. We correct quickly and update the article's dateModified.