Licensed clinician to review a dementia risk-reduction tool and be publicly credited

THE PRODUCT Solenna (solenna.io) is a consumer web tool for reducing dementia risk. It is educational and self-directed. It does not diagnose, treat, prevent or monitor anything, and it is not a medical device. Three parts, and these are what I need reviewed: - A free risk profile. A questionnaire built on the 2024 Lancet Commission's 14 modifiable risk factors. It scores the answers and returns the factors where the person has the most room to move, which the tool calls their "priority levers." - A daily brain workout. Four short cognitive drills, rotating from nine, weighted toward processing speed. Scored and combined into a daily "Brain Score" out of 100. - A longitudinal record. The Brain Score trend over months, a habit log against their priority levers, blood-pressure logging, and a printable dated report to take to their own doctor. I built it alone, in Sweden. I am not a clinician. I need one to tell me where the tool is wrong or irresponsible before more people use it. SCOPE — WHAT I WANT REVIEWED The tool and its scoring engine. In order of how much I worry about it: 1. The Brain Score. It is intended as a personal training benchmark, like a running time, and explicitly not a clinical measure. Does anything on screen let a user read it as a cognitive test result, a screening result, or a dementia risk score? 2. The long-term trend view. Users watch their score across months and years. A falling score must never read as evidence of cognitive decline or of dementia progressing. Is the trend presented responsibly, and what would you change? 3. The scoring engine behind the risk profile. How the questionnaire's answers map onto the 14 factors, how it weights them, and whether the resulting "priority levers" are defensible as an educational map rather than a prediction about the individual. 4. The questionnaire itself. Question wording, what is being asked, what is missing, and anything that would produce a misleading factor score. 5. The drills. Do the four exercise types fairly represent the cognitive domains they are labelled with — processing speed, attention, memory, executive function? Is the processing-speed weighting a defensible reading of the ACTIVE trial, or am I leaning on it too hard? 6. Blood-pressure logging and the printable report. Is this unmistakably a personal record to bring to a clinician, rather than a monitor that interprets readings? 7. In-app language throughout. I hold to "reduce/lower risk", "may help", "associated with", "delay onset", and never "prevent/cure/treat/reverse/diagnose/guaranteed". Tell me where I have slipped. 8. The wellness/medical-device line. Does anything in the tool cross into territory a regulator could read as diagnostic or monitoring? 9. Anything else in the tool a professional in your field would want corrected before it is sold to the public. OUT OF SCOPE — PLEASE DO NOT REVIEW THESE The blog and article library, the editorial-standards page, and the marketing copy. I am not asking for content editing or writing of any kind. This engagement is about the tool. DELIVERABLE 1. A written review of the tool, with a specific screen or step for each point and the wording or logic you would change. 2. A email to go through it. 3. A short re-check after I have made the changes. 4. A public credit. I will publish "Medically reviewed by [your name], [your title and credential], [date]" on the tool's pages and in the site's structured data, with a one-line bio, a link to your professional profile, and a plain statement that you were paid for the review. I will state that you reviewed the tool for accuracy and safety, and I will never imply that you endorse outcomes for any individual user. I remove it immediately if you ask, at any time, for any reason. Being named is part of this job. If you would rather not be publicly credited, this is not the right engagement for you. THIS REVIEW HAS TO BE ABLE TO FAIL. I am paying for your judgement, not your approval. If you conclude that the Brain Score should not exist in its current form, or that a claim cannot be supported, that is a successful outcome and you are paid in full. Do not soften findings to keep the credit publishable — I will fix what you flag before your name goes anywhere near it. ACCESS AND PREPARATION Free full access to the paid product, plus a written list of every claim the tool makes with the source behind it, so none of your hours go on hunting. CREDENTIALS Currently licensed geriatrician, GP/family physician, neurologist, or neuropsychologist, or a PhD researcher published on dementia risk or cognitive assessment. I will verify your registration — Socialstyrelsen HOSP, GMC, ABMS or state board, or equivalent — before anything is published. Not a fit: medical writers without a clinical licence or research record, content or SEO agencies, and anyone who tells me in the proposal that the product looks good. TO APPLY, ANSWER THESE FOUR. I WILL NOT READ PROPOSALS THAT SKIP THEM. 1. Your licence or registration number, and the body that issued it. 2. In one sentence: what is the most common way consumer brain-training tools overstate their evidence? 3. Have you reviewed a consumer health product before, and were you publicly credited? 4. Is there anything in this description you would already push back on? This is a short and quick job, should not take more than an hour. The tool is not big so its quick to get a look at too. Check the site for free at: solenna.io Thanks