Kaya5
Log in

How we source & review

A guide earns a place in the Knowledge Hub only after it clears the same sourcing and review bar. This is that bar.

Last updated 20 July 2026

Our sourcing hierarchy

When a guide makes a health-related claim, we back it with the strongest source available, in this order:

  1. Primary research — peer-reviewed, PubMed-indexed studies and systematic reviews.
  2. Authoritative health bodies— NCCIH, WHO, and, for women’s health, ACOG and the CDC.
  3. Traditional Ayurvedic sources — cited as tradition, and clearly distinguished from modern clinical evidence.

Where the evidence is still developing, we say so plainly rather than overstating it.

Per-claim citations

References aren’t a decorative list at the bottom of the page. Health claims carry a source tied to the specific assertion, rendered both for readers (the References section) and as machine-readable citation data so answer engines can trace and quote us accurately.

The review workflow

  1. A qualified practitioner drafts the guide with a named byline and credentials.
  2. The Kaya5 Practitioner Board reviews it for accuracy, safety, and an educational (non-clinical) framing.
  3. Only after approval is a guide published; supplement and herb protocols stay unpublished until they clear practitioner and counsel sign-off.
  4. Guides are revisited as guidance evolves; each page shows its last-updated date.

Structure that’s built to be quoted

Every guide leads with the direct answer, uses clear headings, and ends with Key Takeaways, an FAQ, and, where a practice is procedural, step-by-step instructions — marked up with schema.org structured data (MedicalWebPage, FAQPage, HowTo) so both search engines and AI assistants can read it precisely.

Safety & scope

Kaya5 is educational and lifestyle-first. We do not diagnose, we do not prescribe, and we do not offer emergency guidance. See our Editorial policy for the full standard, and start with the Knowledge Hub.