Holistix Sources and References Policy

Last Updated: August 10, 2026

Holistix publishes educational content about wellness technology, product specifications, device comparisons, measurement terminology, safety considerations, and emerging areas of research.

Because these topics can mix scientific evidence, technical specifications, marketing language, regulatory information, and consumer questions, we use different source types for different kinds of claims.

This policy explains how Holistix selects, interprets, cites, and maintains sources and references.

Why Sources Matter

Wellness technology can be difficult to interpret because one page may contain several different kinds of information at once.

For example:

a wavelength may be a measurable technical fact
a device specification may come from a manufacturer
a biological mechanism may come from laboratory research
a clinical outcome may come from a human trial
a contraindication may come from product labeling or medical guidance
a consumer question may come from search behavior or customer feedback

These are not interchangeable evidence types.

Our goal is to match the source to the claim being made and to avoid giving a source more authority than it actually provides.

Our General Source Hierarchy

The most appropriate source depends on the question, but Holistix generally prefers primary or authoritative sources when precision or safety matters.

1. Government and Regulatory Sources

These may be used for:

regulatory status
device classifications
safety notices
product clearances or authorizations
public-health guidance
legal or regulatory terminology

Examples may include agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other relevant government bodies.

2. Peer-Reviewed Scientific Research

Scientific literature may include:

randomized controlled trials
clinical studies
systematic reviews
meta-analyses
observational studies
preclinical studies
laboratory research
mechanistic studies

These evidence types should not be treated as equivalent.

For example, a cell-culture study may help explain a possible mechanism, but it does not by itself establish a clinical outcome in humans.

3. Recognized Technical and Scientific References

Technical organizations, standards bodies, scientific institutes, universities, and recognized reference works may be useful for:

physics
measurement terminology
spectral definitions
units
technical classifications
instrumentation context

4. Manufacturer and Product Documentation

Manufacturer sources may be appropriate for:

dimensions
weight
wavelengths
frequency ranges
field strength
materials
operating instructions
warranty information
return terms
included accessories

Manufacturer information is useful for product specifications, but manufacturer claims are not automatically treated as independent scientific evidence.

5. Holistix Canonical Structured Data

The Holistix Open Biohacking Data Project maintains canonical structured reference datasets for selected wellness technology topics.

These datasets are intended to provide stable, versioned reference structures for terminology, evidence context, safety fields, claim types, and related structured information.

Canonical dataset information should be distinguished from broader educational interpretation, product marketing, derived machine-readable resources, and editorial commentary.

Primary Sources vs Secondary Sources

When a claim can be supported by a primary source, we generally prefer the primary source.

Examples include:

the actual research paper instead of a news story about the study
the regulatory database instead of a marketing page describing regulatory status
the product manual instead of an affiliate review describing product settings
the original technical reference instead of an uncited summary

Secondary sources can still be useful for orientation, synthesis, or explanation, especially when they are systematic reviews, recognized medical references, or reputable educational resources.

Sources We Treat Carefully

Some sources can help reveal consumer questions, terminology, expectations, or common confusion but are usually insufficient by themselves for scientific, safety, regulatory, or medical claims.

These include:

forum discussions
social-media posts
customer reviews
affiliate websites
uncited wellness blogs
marketing pages without supporting references
AI-generated summaries
anonymous claims without traceable sourcing

These sources may help identify what people are asking. They should not be promoted into medical or scientific proof.

How We Interpret Scientific Research

A citation does not automatically make a statement accurate.

We aim to examine whether the cited source actually supports the claim being made.

Important questions include:

Was the research performed in humans, animals, cells, or models?
Was the study randomized, observational, experimental, or theoretical?
What population was studied?
What device or exposure was used?
What wavelength, frequency, dose, intensity, concentration, or temperature was involved?
What outcome was actually measured?
How large was the study?
Was there a control group?
Does the conclusion match the data?
Does the study apply to the consumer product being discussed?

One Study Does Not Validate an Entire Technology Category

A study involving one device, wavelength, frequency, dose, exposure, product configuration, or clinical indication should not automatically be generalized to every device carrying the same broad technology label.

For example:

a study involving one photobiomodulation device does not validate every red-light product
a medical PEMF device does not establish the regulatory status of every consumer PEMF mat
a hydrogen-water trial does not establish a universal therapeutic PPB threshold
a terahertz laboratory system does not automatically validate a consumer wellness device

This distinction is part of the broader Holistix Wellness Device Claim Boundary framework .

How We Handle Conflicting Evidence

Scientific sources do not always agree.

When reliable sources conflict, we aim to avoid pretending that a settled answer exists when it does not.

Depending on the topic, we may:

describe the disagreement
identify differences in study design or exposure
note that evidence is mixed
avoid a universal conclusion
update a page if newer evidence materially changes the interpretation

Evidence Strength and Language

The wording used on a page should reflect the strength and type of evidence available.

We may distinguish among language such as:

“measured”
“reported”
“observed”
“associated with”
“investigated”
“suggests”
“proposed mechanism”
“emerging research”
“manufacturer-reported”

We try to avoid changing “associated with” into “causes,” “investigated” into “proven,” or “manufacturer-reported” into “independently verified.”

Safety-Sensitive Topics

For topics involving safety, contraindications, implanted devices, pregnancy, photosensitivity, seizure history, cardiovascular concerns, heat exposure, medication interactions, or other medical circumstances, we aim to use especially cautious sourcing.

Sources may include:

product instructions
medical-device labeling
government safety guidance
recognized medical organizations
peer-reviewed clinical literature

Holistix educational content does not replace device-specific safety instructions or qualified medical guidance.

Product Specification Sources

Product specifications are a separate evidence category from scientific claims.

Depending on availability, Holistix may use:

current Holistix product pages
product manuals
manufacturer documentation
supplier documentation
internal product records
independent testing where available

Product specifications can change over time.

If an older educational page conflicts with current product documentation, the discrepancy should be reviewed rather than silently preserved.

Where possible, specification language should also identify whether a value is:

manufacturer-reported
independently measured
laboratory-tested
calculated
estimated
not disclosed

Related principles are documented in the Holistix Wellness Device Transparency Standard .

Open Biohacking Data Source Register

The Open Biohacking Data Source Register provides project-level information about source categories and references used within the Holistix Open Biohacking Data Project.

The Source Register supports, but does not replace, row-level or topic-specific sourcing where more precise attribution is required.

Methodology and Evidence Boundaries

Source selection should be interpreted alongside the Open Biohacking Data Methodology .

Methodology describes how structured information is organized, interpreted, and maintained across the project.

The Wellness Device Claim Boundary Index provides additional guidance for separating:

technical facts
evidence-supported interpretation
emerging research
manufacturer claims
consumer wellness claims

External Links

Holistix educational pages may link to external scientific, regulatory, technical, or manufacturer resources.

External links are provided for context and verification. Holistix does not control the future availability, formatting, ownership, or revision of third-party websites.

A source may later:

move to a different URL
be updated
be withdrawn
be corrected
become unavailable

When we identify a broken or materially outdated reference, we may replace, archive, update, or remove it.

Corrections, Retractions, and Updated Research

Scientific literature can change after publication.

If a cited paper is corrected, retracted, materially challenged, or superseded by stronger evidence, Holistix may update the affected page.

Project-level changes may also be documented through the Open Biohacking Data Version History .

AI-Assisted Research and Content Organization

Holistix may use AI-assisted tools to:

organize research
identify common questions
summarize themes
identify possible contradictions
locate areas needing better sourcing
help structure educational material

AI-generated text is not treated as a scientific, regulatory, technical, or product source by itself.

When a factual claim requires support, the supporting authority should be an identifiable source appropriate to the claim being made.

Machine-Readable Sources and Structured Data

The Holistix Open Biohacking Data Project publishes selected structured information in machine-readable formats.

These may include:

CSV
JSON
JSONL
JSON-LD
Data Package metadata
RO-Crate metadata
provenance records
release metadata

Machine readability does not change the evidentiary strength of a source.

A weak claim does not become stronger merely because it is represented in JSON.

Project Versioning

Holistix distinguishes between canonical subject dataset versions and broader Open Biohacking Data Project releases.

Current project release: v1.5.0

Current canonical subject dataset version: v1.2

Canonical project release DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21862535

Project concept DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20978709

Reader Feedback

If you believe a Holistix page:

needs a stronger source
contains an outdated reference
misrepresents a study
uses inappropriate regulatory language
contains a broken external link
conflicts with current product specifications

please contact us so the page can be reviewed.

Contact Holistix

Related Holistix Policies and Resources

Page History

August 10, 2026: Synchronized the Sources and References Policy with Holistix Open Biohacking Data Project v1.5.0; added a formal source hierarchy; clarified primary versus secondary sources; strengthened interpretation rules for scientific research; added guidance for conflicting evidence, device-specific studies, regulatory sources, manufacturer specifications, and machine-readable data; connected the policy to the Source Register, Methodology, Version History, Claim Boundary Index, Transparency Standard, and project release architecture.