A Website That Speaks Your Language — and Your Doctor's

How In[Neo]Sight was built to give families, nurses, and researchers the same information about neonatology research, each in the way that works best for them

Why We Built This

When a baby is born too early or too sick, the NICU becomes the centre of the family's world. And in that world, information is everything — but it does not always arrive in a form that helps.

Parents often find themselves caught between two extremes. On one side: the medical team, who can explain what a study showed but may not have thirty minutes to translate a confidence interval into something that feels real at 2 am. On the other side: the internet, which returns a flood of results with no way to know which ones are trustworthy, which are outdated, and which have nothing to do with the specific situation their baby is in [1].

Meanwhile, the nurses and doctors caring for that baby have their own version of the same problem. The research that guides NICU care is scattered across hundreds of journals. Keeping up with new evidence while also caring for critically ill newborns is not something any individual clinician can do comprehensively on their own.

In[Neo]Sight was built to help with both problems at once — and the way it does that is through a single idea: the same research, explained three different ways, all in the same place.

What Is In[Neo]Sight?

In[Neo]Sight is a free website about neonatology — the branch of medicine that cares for newborns, especially those born premature or with serious illness. Every piece of content on the site covers real research: studies, trials, and reviews that have been published in medical journals and that shape how babies in the NICU are cared for.

What makes In[Neo]Sight different is that every article exists in three versions, called tiers:

The Scientific version is written for researchers and academic doctors. It includes all the technical detail: how the study was designed, how many patients were enrolled, what the exact statistics showed, and what the limitations are. If you have a background in clinical research, this is your version.

The Clinical version is written for the nurses and doctors who work in NICUs. It focuses on what the research means for actual patient care — what to watch for, how to apply the findings, what questions remain. If you work in a NICU, this is your version.

The Layperson version — the one you are reading right now — is written for families and for anyone who wants to understand neonatology research without needing a medical degree. It uses plain language, real-world comparisons, and the kind of explanation you might hope to get from a doctor who has time to sit down with you [2].

All three versions cover the same study. All three versions are based on the same verified facts. If your nurse is reading the Clinical version and you are reading the Layperson version, you are both reading about the same research — just explained in the way that works best for each of you.

How the Articles Are Made

You might wonder: who writes these articles, and how do we know the information is accurate?

Every article cluster on In[Neo]Sight is produced through a three-step process involving three separate roles — a Researcher, a Writer, and a Reviewer — working in sequence [3].

The Researcher goes to find the actual study. They retrieve the full text of the research paper — from a medical database like PubMed Central — and extract every important number, every key finding, every piece of data before any writing begins. If the full text of a paper cannot be retrieved, no article is produced. The Researcher also checks every reference cited in the article against authoritative sources like CrossRef, to make sure author names, journal titles, years, and page numbers are correct. All of this goes into a document called the Source Transparency Report, which is published on the site alongside the three articles.

The Writer receives the Researcher's data and writes all three versions — Scientific, Clinical, and Layperson — from it. The Writer is not allowed to use any number from memory. Every specific figure in every article must come directly from the Researcher's verified data. This rule exists because one of the risks of AI-assisted writing is producing sentences that sound correct but contain invented statistics — a risk that is especially serious in medical content [4].

The Reviewer checks everything before it is published. They read all three articles, check every citation, compare every number against the Researcher's data, and verify the references. Only after the Reviewer approves the cluster can it appear on the site.

This process takes longer than simply asking an AI to write about a study. But it means that what you read has been verified against the actual source, not generated from a system's general knowledge.

We are also careful about where the research comes from. In[Neo]Sight only uses studies that are free and legal to read — through public medical libraries like PubMed Central and other open-access sources. If the full study is not openly available, we do not write about it. And we never copy a paper's text: every article is written in our own words, explaining the facts and findings, with a link back to the original study so you can always go and read the source yourself.

Here is something we believe in being open about: the articles on In[Neo]Sight are written by an artificial intelligence — the AI assistant Claude — and so is the website itself. The same kind of AI that writes the three versions of each article also wrote the computer code that runs the site. We think this is a hopeful thing, not a worrying one. It means a small team can bring carefully checked research to families, nurses, and doctors far faster than the old way of doing things — as long as every fact is traced back to a real source and checked, which is exactly what the three-step process above is for.

What You Can Find Here

In[Neo]Sight organises its content into 16 categories that cover the main areas of neonatal medicine — from respiratory care and cardiovascular conditions to nutrition, neurology, and mental health and human experience. Each article links to the original research paper with a clickable DOI (a permanent web address that takes you directly to the study), so you can always find the source.

The site also has a citation network — a map of how the studies covered on In[Neo]Sight relate to each other. Research builds on research; a trial published in 2025 may have been shaped by a foundational study from 2013. The citation network makes these connections visible [5].

There is also a set of eighteen medical calculators — the same kinds of quick calculations the NICU team uses every day, such as working out a baby's corrected age, tracking growth, or checking fluid and nutrition amounts. These are built mainly for clinicians, but they are open for anyone to see. If you have ever wondered how the team arrives at a particular number, the calculators are one place the reasoning becomes visible — and everything runs privately in your own browser, with no information about your baby sent anywhere or saved.

If you are a family member in the NICU and you want to learn more about a treatment your baby is receiving, you can search for it on In[Neo]Sight. If you find the article but have questions, you can leave a comment, and the community — including other parents who have been through similar experiences, and sometimes clinicians who use the site — may be able to help. Your comments are genuinely welcome: they are one of the main ways we hear from the people the site is for.

In[Neo]Sight is also built to be shaped by its readers, not just read by them. If you know of a study you think should be covered, the "Suggest a Paper" feature lets you describe it and say why it matters, and the editorial team will review it. And if an article helps you, it is easy to pass along: every article has one-tap sharing to common apps and social networks — Facebook, X, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Telegram, Reddit, Threads, Bluesky, LINE, Medium, and email — plus a "copy link" button, and a shared link shows up as a tidy preview card rather than a bare web address. Many families find this is a simple way to share what they are learning with relatives who could not be at the bedside. That same feature is how to reach us for anything else, too. And it is how experts get involved: the site's expert columns invite neonatologists, nurses, and researchers to contribute their own writing from time to time — if you are a specialist who would like to write for In[Neo]Sight, or a reader who wants to get in touch, the "Suggest a Paper" form is the way to start the conversation.

A Note on Plain Language

This family-facing version is written in the plainest language we can manage without losing accuracy, and that is a deliberate choice. How clearly information is written, and how easily it can be understood, genuinely affects health — people who can follow what they are told tend to do better than those left confused by jargon [6]. So we avoid unexplained medical terms, lean on everyday comparisons, and give real numbers rather than vague reassurance, so that understanding the research behind your baby's care does not require a medical background.

What Is Still Being Built

In[Neo]Sight is a young platform, and there is more to come. If you create an account, you can already save articles into a personal library and organise them into folders, like a reading list. Still in progress: full-text search that looks inside the whole article rather than just the titles and summaries. An advisory board of neonatology specialists and family advocates is also being assembled to help guide the editorial direction of the platform.

Some things that families have said they would value most — the ability to receive email updates when a new article is published on a topic they care about, the ability to ask questions directly to medical experts, and more content on the emotional and family experience of the NICU — are all on the roadmap [7]. Research consistently shows that family-centred care — which includes timely, accessible information — improves outcomes not just for babies but for parents too [8], [9].

Why This Matters

Research changes what happens in the NICU. A trial published in 2010 may determine what oxygen level your baby is maintained at today. A meta-analysis published last year may have shifted how your medical team thinks about a treatment they have been using for a decade [10]. Understanding what specific outcomes researchers measure — and why — helps families ask better questions and feel more grounded in conversations that can otherwise feel overwhelming [11]. And while the most difficult conversations in neonatal medicine touch on prognosis and end-of-life care, the evidence base for those conversations exists and is part of what In[Neo]Sight aims to make accessible [12]. Families deserve to understand these decisions — not because they should be making them alone, but because understanding what the evidence shows, and what it does not show, makes every conversation with the medical team more meaningful.

In[Neo]Sight is not a substitute for the doctors and nurses caring for your baby. It is a place to understand the research behind what they do — at your own pace, at whatever depth makes sense for you.

We named the platform In[Neo]Sight because we believe that insight — clear, honest, well-sourced understanding — is something every person connected to neonatal care deserves access to. Not just the ones with a medical degree.

References

  1. Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):97–107. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005 ↩
  2. Aldridge MD. Writing and designing readable patient education materials. Nephrol Nurs J. 2004;31(4):373–377. PMID: 15382667 ↩
  3. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4(4):CD001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5 ↩
  4. Suresh G, Horbar JD, Plsek P, et al. Voluntary anonymous reporting of medical errors for neonatal intensive care. Pediatrics. 2004;113(6):1609–1618. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1609 ↩
  5. Eysenbach G. Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biol. 2006;4(5):e157. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157 ↩
  6. Paasche-Orlow MK, Wolf MS. The causal pathways linking health literacy to health outcomes. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31 Suppl 1:S19–26. doi:10.5993/AJHB.31.s1.4 ↩
  7. Obeidat HM, Bond EA, Callister LC. The parental experience of having an infant in the newborn intensive care unit. J Perinat Educ. 2009;18(3):23–29. doi:10.1624/105812409X461199 ↩
  8. Lanese BM, Trout JM, Lyman DR, et al. Perceptions of family-centered care in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Perinatol. 2021;41:1708–1716. doi:10.1038/s41372-021-01028-3 ↩
  9. Davis TC, Wolf MS, Bass PF 3rd, et al. Literacy and misunderstanding prescription drug labels. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(12):887–894. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-12-200612190-00144 ↩
  10. Guillaume S, Michelin N, Amrani E, et al. Parents' expectations of staff in the early bonding process with their premature babies in the intensive care setting: a qualitative multicenter study with 60 parents. BMC Pediatr. 2013;13:18. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-13-18 ↩
  11. Gargon E, Gurung B, Medley N, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e99111. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099111 ↩
  12. Lantos JD, Meadow WL. Costs and end-of-life care in the NICU: lessons for the MICU? J Law Med Ethics. 2011;39(2):194–200. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00591.x ↩