How we do research
Every PlainBreed research article is grounded in our own database, which mirrors the
FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine adverse-event reporting system.
We do not commission new data collection; we surface what the public-domain feed already records, normalize it across
the FDA's evolving report formats, and apply consistent breed and event-category labels.
Each article opens with a one-paragraph thesis, a description of the data window, and a plain description of what
was included or excluded. We then walk through findings
with charts and tables drawn from the current dataset. We close every article with a candid
limitations section.
Every figure in our research comes from a single source, the FDA CVM adverse-event dataset, and we say so on
each article. We do not blend in outside datasets or estimates, we do not accept payment for editorial coverage,
and we do not present a breed or product more favorably because of any commercial relationship.
Open methodology
The FDA-CVM adverse-event dataset has known biases: it is voluntary, skewed toward severe outcomes, and shifts
composition as reporting infrastructure evolves. When we publish a count or a ranking, we explicitly state which
slice of the data the count was drawn from and how the slice would change the answer. Readers can verify any
number we publish against the upstream FDA-CVM source.
We do not extrapolate from voluntary-report counts to population-incidence estimates. We do not present rankings
as recommendations. PlainBreed exists to help responsible owners and clinicians ask better questions; it does
not replace a veterinarian's diagnosis. Always consult a qualified DVM for medical decisions affecting an animal
in your care.