Editorial policy, sourcing, and who publishes this
Stem Cell Seoul is published and funded by Delight Dermatology Clinic, a board-certified dermatology practice in Seocho-gu, Seoul (medical institution registration 357-15-02460). That is a conflict of interest, and the way it is managed is by constraint rather than by promise: this site publishes no prices, describes no procedure as offered by any clinic, and makes no claim that the publisher is authorised to provide any intervention discussed here. Every clinical statement is tied to a named peer-reviewed source or a primary regulatory document, and where the evidence is weak the page says so even when that is commercially unhelpful.
Who publishes this
The publisher is Delight Dermatology Clinic, a dermatology clinic in Seoul. Its own website is hifuseoul.com and its clinician credentials are documented on that site. This is not an independent publication, a review site, a directory, or a comparison engine, and it should be read with that in mind. Disclosing it prominently is the minimum; the editorial constraints below are the substantive part.
Content is written by the Stem Cell Seoul editorial team and reviewed by a Korean Board-Certified Dermatologist who is an AAD International Fellow and an ASLMS member. The reviewer is identified by credential rather than by name, which is a standing decision across the publisher’s specialty sites.
What this site does not publish
These are hard constraints, checked automatically before each build rather than left to editorial memory. A page that violates one does not ship.
The reason for the second item deserves stating plainly. The publisher’s own clinical site holds its stem-cell and exosome procedure pages unpublished pending confirmation of product identity, source, processing, authorisation, evidence and risk. It would be incoherent to withhold those claims there and re-publish them here under a different domain. The constraint on this site follows that decision rather than working around it.
How a claim gets onto this site
Retrieved from the database
Sources are pulled from PubMed and pasted, never reconstructed from memory.
Retractions excluded
One otherwise relevant review is deliberately absent, and the exclusion is recorded in the source file.
Study design stated
The sentence carries the design that supports it — a finding in cell culture is described as one.
Authors' own limits carried
If reviewers graded their evidence low certainty, that grade appears in our sentence too.
Checked before every build
Prices, offer claims, held routes and unnegated approval claims fail the build rather than warn.
Clinical statements rest on nineteen peer-reviewed references, each retrieved from PubMed and recorded with its PMID and DOI so a reader can check it. Preference goes to systematic reviews and meta-analyses, then to randomised trials, then to narrative reviews, and mechanism-only studies are labelled as such in the text rather than presented as clinical evidence.
Two rules govern the reference list. Sources are pulled from the database and pasted, never reconstructed from memory, because a plausible-looking but nonexistent PMID is the most damaging error this kind of page can contain. And retracted work is excluded — one otherwise relevant review of skin boosters is deliberately absent from this site’s bibliography for that reason, and is noted as excluded in the source file so it does not get reinstated by a later editor who does not know why it went.
Primary regulatory sources
Regulatory statements rest on primary documents rather than on secondary reporting. Each is published with its scope limit attached, because both documents are frequently cited to support conclusions they do not reach.
How claims are framed
Three framing rules apply throughout. Effect claims carry the study design that supports them and the limit the authors themselves stated — if reviewers graded their evidence low certainty, that grade appears in our sentence too. Mechanism is never presented as outcome; a finding in fibroblast culture is described as a finding in fibroblast culture. And regulatory status in one jurisdiction is never offered as evidence about another, in either direction.
Review and revision
Every page carries the date it was last medically reviewed. Those dates are stored per page and updated only when that page’s content is actually revised — the site does not restamp every page on each deployment, because a uniform fresh date across a whole site is a false signal about how recently anything was checked.
Pages are revised when the underlying evidence changes, when a cited source is retracted or superseded, when regulation is amended, or when an error is reported and confirmed.
Corrections
If you believe something here is wrong, tell us and cite the source that shows it. Corrections to matters of fact are made and the page’s revision date updated. Contact runs through the publisher’s clinic site at hifuseoul.com.
Funding and advertising
The site is funded entirely by the publisher. It carries no advertising, no affiliate links, no sponsored content, and no commercial relationship with any manufacturer of any product described. Nothing on the site is paid placement.
Written by the Stem Cell Seoul editorial team and medically reviewed by a Korean Board-Certified Dermatologist (AAD International Fellow · ASLMS member). Last reviewed 2026-08-30.