Clinical Lead & Medical Review
Dr Sara Mohebbi — Consultant Radiologist (Facharzt für Radiologie), sub-specialty focus in neuroradiology.
Dr Sara Mohebbi
Consultant Radiologist (Facharzt für Radiologie) Sub-specialty focus in neuroradiology — brain, spine, head and neck imaging Member of the European Society of Radiology (ESR)
Over ten years of senior radiology experience across university hospital, emergency, and teleradiology settings. Formerly Chief Resident in Neuroradiology at University Hospital Freiburg. Currently reporting brain, spine, and head and neck imaging studies, including trauma and emergency reporting, with active participation in multidisciplinary tumour boards and clinical case review.
All radiology review work on the Radiology Prime platform is performed personally by our Clinical Lead. Every case submitted today is reviewed by her.
Table of contents
- Purpose and mandate
- Why independent review matters
- The medical review process
- Frameworks applied
- Reviewer eligibility
- Independence, ethics, and transparency
- AI-assisted content
- Audit and complaints
- Scope of the service
- Related policies and governance documents
Purpose and mandate
Our Clinical Lead is responsible for the clinical accuracy, evidence alignment, and professional integrity of medical content published on Radiology Prime, and for the personal review of every case submitted through the platform.
The mandate covers two distinct kinds of work:
Clinical case review. Every patient case submitted to the platform is reviewed personally by our Clinical Lead, who prepares the structured second-opinion radiology report. Cases are reviewed in line with the sub-capability scope set out on each services page (neuro-oncology, multiple sclerosis and demyelinating diseases, dementia and neurodegenerative conditions, congenital brain and spine conditions, head and neck imaging, vascular conditions of the head, neck, and spine).
Editorial review of website content. Our Clinical Lead reviews articles, clinical references, sub-capability pages, and service descriptions for clinical accuracy, alignment with current evidence, and consistency with established neuroradiology guidelines.
This mandate is limited to medical accuracy and clinical integrity within the sub-specialty of neuroradiology. Editorial governance, publishing decisions, and content workflows are defined separately in our Editorial Policy and described in our Medical Review Process.
Why independent review matters
Medical content shapes how patients understand their imaging and how they prepare for conversations with their treating team. Content that is inaccurate, out of date, or inconsistently presented can mislead patients and undercut the value of those conversations.
Our Clinical Lead ensures that all published medical content meets the following standards:
- Medical material is consistent with current scientific and clinical consensus
- Clinical accuracy and use of correct medical terminology are checked before publication
- Recommendations align with established neuroradiology guidelines and reporting frameworks
- Content is presented in appropriate clinical context with patient-facing accessibility
- Updates are issued when published material no longer reflects current evidence or guidelines
The medical review process
Every piece of medical content on the site moves through a four-step review process before it is published, and is re-reviewed periodically once live.
Content creation
Content is drafted by qualified authors or structured from verified clinical sources. Authors are required to provide source references for every clinical claim. Sources include peer-reviewed literature, professional society guidelines, established diagnostic frameworks, and current clinical consensus statements.
Clinical review by our Clinical Lead
Our Clinical Lead examines the draft for clinical accuracy, correct use of medical terminology, alignment with established neuroradiology guidelines, and appropriate clinical communication. Where content falls outside our Clinical Lead’s direct sub-specialty experience, publication is deferred until an appropriately qualified reviewer can be engaged. Outside-scope content is not published rather than reviewed superficially.
Evidence verification
Each clinical claim is verified against named sources at the time of review. The specific frameworks and source types Radiology Prime considers authoritative for sub-specialty neuroradiology content are listed in the next section.
Ongoing review and updates
Published content is reviewed periodically and updated when clinical evidence, professional guidelines, or standards of care change. Time-sensitive content (newly published clinical guidelines, framework revisions, treatment-pathway updates) is prioritised for re-review when relevant evidence appears.
The detailed workflow, review timelines, and audit records are described in the Medical Review Process page.
Frameworks applied
Radiology Prime’s clinical and editorial review is anchored to the established frameworks and reporting systems used in modern sub-specialty neuroradiology practice. Specific frameworks applied across our six sub-capabilities include:
Multiple sclerosis and demyelinating diseases: McDonald criteria, MAGNIMS protocols, NMOSD and MOG-AD consensus diagnostic criteria.
Dementia and neurodegenerative conditions: MTA (medial temporal atrophy) scale, GCA (global cortical atrophy) scale, Koedam score for posterior atrophy, Fazekas scale for white matter changes, Evans index and DESH pattern for normal pressure hydrocephalus assessment.
Neuro-oncology: RANO and RANO-BM response assessment criteria, structured tumour measurement and staging descriptors.
Head and neck imaging: NI-RADS post-treatment surveillance criteria, TNM descriptors for tumour assessment.
Vascular conditions: ASPECTS scoring for stroke imaging, Spetzler-Martin grading for AVM characterisation, Borden and Cognard classifications for dural arteriovenous fistulas, NASCET criteria for carotid stenosis measurement, structured aneurysm morphology assessment.
Congenital brain and spine conditions: Chiari classification, conus medullaris position assessment, Barkovich-style classification for cortical malformations, structured measurements for tethered cord workup.
Source materials reviewed against these frameworks include peer-reviewed neuroradiology and neurology journals, European Society of Radiology and European Society of Neuroradiology guidance, professional society consensus statements, and established radiology reporting standards.
Reviewer eligibility
Our Clinical Lead is currently the sole reviewing radiologist on the Radiology Prime platform. Every case submitted today is reviewed by her.
If the team grows
If and when the reviewing team expands, additional reviewing radiologists will join under the same eligibility criteria, with full credentials published on this page alongside the Clinical Lead’s profile. The criteria below set the standard for any future reviewer:
- A minimum of five years of senior clinical or academic experience as a specialist radiologist or sub-specialist consultant
- Active professional standing within a recognised European medical regulatory authority
- Sub-specialty expertise directly relevant to the cases being reviewed
- Demonstrated knowledge of evidence-based medicine and the established frameworks listed above
- Active participation in multidisciplinary clinical discussions or continuing professional development
- Declared and appropriately managed conflicts of interest
The full eligibility framework, including the credentialing process and the documentation each reviewer must provide, is set out in the Clinical Governance & Professional Standards page.
Independence, ethics, and transparency
The editorial function operates independently of Radiology Prime’s commercial activities. No content is published, modified, or removed in response to commercial pressure. Advertising relationships, sponsorships, and commercial partnerships have no influence over editorial or medical review decisions, and Radiology Prime does not currently accept advertising or commercial sponsorship of medical content.
Our Clinical Lead is required to declare any potential conflict of interest before reviewing content or cases. Declared conflicts are assessed and managed in accordance with our Editorial Policy. Where a conflict cannot be adequately managed, the relevant content is deferred until an independent external reviewer can be engaged, or it is not published.
Transparency in editorial oversight is a core commitment. The governance structure, review process, reviewer eligibility criteria, and conflict-of-interest framework are published and maintained as part of the site’s clinical governance documentation.
AI-assisted content
AI & technology policy
Technology and AI-powered tools may be used to support the drafting, structuring, or organisation of content. All AI-assisted content is reviewed and verified by a qualified medical professional before it is published on this site.
AI tools do not replace clinical knowledge, professional discretion, or editorial responsibility. The final determination of clinical accuracy, appropriate context, and publication suitability rests with a qualified human reviewer at all times.
Audit and complaints
Audit records
Editorial and clinical review decisions are logged and the platform retains audit records of when content was reviewed, by whom, against which sources, and when it was last updated. Audit records are retained for the period required by professional and regulatory standards.
How to raise a clinical concern
If you have a clinical concern about content published on this site or about a report you have received, contact us at info [at] radiologyprime [dot] com. Concerns about editorial content are reviewed by our Clinical Lead within five working days; concerns about a specific patient report are responded to within two working days. Concerns are logged, tracked, and resolved in writing.
For complaints relating to data handling, see the Privacy Policy and the contact information for our data protection function.
Scope of the service
What our Clinical Lead does within the Radiology Prime service:
- Reviews second-opinion radiology cases on existing MRI and CT imaging of the brain, spine, and head and neck (including CTA and MRA sequences where part of the study)
- Prepares structured second-opinion radiology reports applying the frameworks listed in Section 4
- Reviews and approves medical content published on the site
- Responds to follow-up questions submitted by patients through the platform after report delivery
What the service does not do:
- Does not perform imaging — the service is a second opinion on existing imaging only
- Does not diagnose or treat — reports are informational and support discussion with the treating physician
- Does not create a doctor-patient relationship with Radiology Prime or its reviewing radiologist
- Does not replace primary medical care or specialist consultation
- Does not review imaging outside the sub-specialty scope (musculoskeletal, breast, urology, gynaecology, cardiothoracic, body oncology, or catheter angiography studies)
- Is not appropriate for acute or emergency symptoms
Related policies and governance documents
For further information on how content is reviewed, monitored, and published, please refer to the following governance documents:
Standards
Clinical Governance & Professional Standards
Consultant eligibility and reporting frameworks
Conflict of interest disclosure. Dr Mohebbi serves as a clinical consultant to Radiology Prime under a written professional services agreement. This is the only commercial relationship between Radiology Prime and the reviewing radiologist. The arrangement is declared in line with our Editorial Policy and is reviewed annually.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. All content on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended as medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment guidance. Clinical decisions should always be made in consultation with a qualified healthcare professional who has direct knowledge of your individual circumstances.
No. The Medical Editorial Board operates independently of all commercial relationships. Advertising, sponsorship, and commercial partnerships have no influence over editorial or clinical review decisions. This independence is a formal requirement of board membership and is defined in our Editorial Policy.
Yes. All medical and clinical content published on this site is reviewed by licensed physicians and specialist clinicians as part of our structured editorial process. Reviewers are selected based on their subspecialty expertise and must meet the eligibility criteria defined in our board selection standards.
Content is reviewed periodically and updated when new evidence, revised clinical guidelines, or changes in accepted standards of care require it. Time-sensitive clinical areas — such as oncology imaging criteria and diagnostic classification systems — are prioritised for review when significant updates are published.
Where AI tools are used to support content creation, all output is reviewed and verified by a qualified medical professional before publication. AI tools do not make editorial or clinical determinations. Human oversight governs all publication decisions on this platform.