Huangdi Neijing Evidence Translation and Health Practice Laboratory
Problem
Classical health propositions are not equivalent to modern medical concepts, measurements, or causal standards, and direct use without definition and safety validation may mislead or delay care.
Research question
Can selected Huangdi Neijing propositions be translated into modern operational definitions, repeatable measures, and research questions with acceptable risk?
Testable hypothesis
The following is a testable proposition, not an established result.
A prespecified mapping of classical propositions will reach acceptable rater agreement and generate testable predictions for defined observations; one disagreement or unmet prediction is not decisive, and prespecified thresholds plus repeated validation determine whether evidence supports progression, while unacceptable risk triggers stopping or revision.
Measures
- Term definitions, textual basis, and inter-rater agreement
- Preregistered observations, effect direction, and uncertainty
- Adverse events, risk of delayed standard care, and user misunderstanding
Method
Use version-traceable textual research, interdisciplinary term mapping, modern evidence review, and preregistered validation; health-practice work requires medical and ethics review and does not replace diagnosis, prescribing, or necessary care.
Current evidence
The following states the current record and evidence types separately from the hypothesis.
The Huangdi Neijing is treated as a historical theory source and modern peer-reviewed literature as material for systematic assessment; the project has no completed evidence synthesis, validation data, or efficacy conclusion.
- Theory source
- Testable hypothesis
- Research protocol
- Peer-reviewed evidence
Evidence gaps
- A version-specific proposition list, term mapping, and systematic evidence appraisal are still missing
- Safety review, prospective validation, and independent replication are still missing
Milestones
- Complete source anchors, modern definitions, and failure criteria for the first propositions
- Complete evidence grading, medical-safety review, and research-ethics review
- Determine the scope of observational or pilot validation only after review
Governance
Record classical interpretation, modern evidence, and project findings separately with traceable versions and revisions; no health claim changes status without independent review.
Ethics
State that the work does not replace medical care; research must not prompt medication cessation, emergency delay, or rejection of standard treatment, and participation, data use, and withdrawal require informed authorization.
Partner needs
- Medical-history, classical-text, clinical-research, and evidence-appraisal institutions
- Research-ethics, patient-safety, and science-communication partners
Planned public outputs
- Classical proposition to modern definition and measure mapping
- Evidence map, safety boundaries, and validation protocol