State of knowledge.
Several sources are brought together, their methods and limits are specified, without turning an association into causation.
Editorial method · Version 1.0
Making the evidence, the limits and the corrections visible.
AI & Occupational Health favours primary sources, distinguishes established results, emerging signals and hypotheses, then dates every sensitive piece of content. A review statement is displayed only when an identified person has genuinely reviewed the scope concerned. Reported errors are verified, corrected and recorded without erasing the useful history.
- Editorial lead
- Dr Charles Broutin
- Version
- 1.0 · 27 August 2026
- Next review
- February 2027
01 / What the site publishes
The status of a piece of content must be legible before it is interpreted.
An aid to discussion.
A questionnaire or grid structures observation. It replaces neither a diagnosis, nor a regulatory assessment, nor a validated instrument.
An explicit scenario.
A hypothesis is presented as such, with its conditions, its counter-arguments and what would make it testable.
Work published elsewhere.
The record points to the journal, the institution or the DOI that constitutes the bibliographic source of truth.
02 / Evidence hierarchy
Four levels, never a truth score.
The level describes the nature of the available support. It never removes the need to read the method, the population, the context and the limits.
LevelSupportEditorial use
APrimary source, official text or systematic review
Establish a rule, a definition, a method or a result within its exact scope.
BSingle empirical study
Document a signal while retaining the limits of sample, measurement and generalisation.
CProfessional consensus or documented field report
Describe a practice or a framework for action without presenting it as causal evidence.
DHypothesis, scenario or analogy
Open a research or prevention question, with an explicit statement of uncertainty.
03 / Review and freshness
Frequency depends on the risk of obsolescence.
An ‘updated’ date is not enough: living pages specify what has been checked and, where possible, the next review.
Law and governance
Monitoring whenever a text, timetable or doctrine changes; formal review at least quarterly.
Scientific evidence
Re-reading of sources, new work, consistency of evidence levels and maintenance of links.
Tools and methods
Version, purpose, items, rules of use, limits and change log are updated together.
Stable pages
Check of intent, clarity, internal links, metadata and author identity.
External review
The name, qualification and scope of review are shown on the page only when an external review has actually taken place. In the absence of that statement, no external validation should be inferred.
04 / Corrections
Correcting without silently rewriting history.
- 01Receive
The report identifies the page, the passage and, where possible, a verifiable source.
- 02Verify
The content is compared with the source of truth and with the exact scope of the claim.
- 03Correct
The change is dated; a substantive correction is summarised in the page change log.
- 04Propagate
The translations, tables, diagrams and structured data concerned are checked in turn.
05 / Independence and responsibility
An independent resource is not an institutional source.
The project is run by Dr Charles Broutin. His professional affiliations shed light on his experience; they do not mean that a cited organisation endorses the site as a whole.
Responsibility
The author is answerable for the selection of sources, the wording, the limits and the corrections, within the exact scope stated on each page.
Conflicts and funding
Any funding, partnership, contribution or interest liable to influence a piece of content must be declared on the page concerned. A link to a supplier does not constitute a recommendation.
Scope
The site provides general information on prevention and method. It constitutes neither individual medical advice nor legal advice tailored to a particular situation.
Who publishes this?
Read the author page →