We use artificial intelligence as a tool, never as a replacement for scientific judgement. This statement explains where AI sits in our work, where it explicitly does not, and who remains responsible.
Last updated: 1 September 2026
AI accelerates work; it does not determine conclusions. Every interpretation, recommendation and publication by Neurofactor is reviewed and approved by a human before it leaves the building.
We are transparent about the role of AI, because trust in research depends on traceability.
Raw, identifiable research data is not sent to external AI models. Where we use AI services, we do so with pseudonymised or aggregated data, with vendors that do not use customer data to train their models.
Confidential client information falls under the same rule: no input into public models, only environments covered contractually.
A Neurofactor researcher is and remains accountable for every conclusion. If AI suggests a pattern the measurement design cannot support, we take it out of the report.
When in doubt, the scientific principle applies: a cautious claim is better than an attractive one that does not hold.
AI models inherit the biases of their training data. We therefore always test AI-supported outcomes against the raw data, the measurement context and the judgement of several researchers.
Where AI plays a substantial role in an outcome, we say so in the report.
Parts of the texts, translations and illustrations on this site were produced with AI support and then edited and checked by our people. Research results, cases and figures always come from real projects.
Want to know what role AI played in a specific project? Ask us at contact@neurofactor.nl. We explain our approach per project.
