Traditional Chinese Medicine + artificial intelligence: Wuzhen consensus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through three millennia of practice, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has evolved by integrating knowledge from diverse disciplines, forging a distinct developmental path that respects its ancient foundations while incorporating innovation. TCM has achieved significant breakthroughs in elucidating its theoretical foundations using contemporary scientific methodologies, through the implementation of modernization initiatives over the past three decades. The TCM modernization program has yielded continuous innovations, propelling TCM into a high-quality development stage across both clinical practice and industrial applications. Notably, these advances have enhanced global recognition and adoption of TCM. Technology reshapes the world and the future. Every major technological breakthrough drives leapfrog development in human society.Amidst the fourth technological revolution catalyzed by artificial intelligence (AI), we soberly recognize that AI is a transformative force driving the development of TCM, presenting both opportunities and challenges. The convergence of AI and TCM is not a mere technical overlay, but rather a generational leap in cognitive paradigms. Through a systematic critical analysis of the technology-enterprise-industry triad, interdisciplinary experts have formulated the following consensus regarding optimal AI implementation in TCM. Embrace AI A comprehensive understanding of AI's technological characteristics forms the prerequisite for its judicious application. Although AI technology is in the process of iterative development, it has already demonstrated formidable capacity to propel the new quality productive forces. Looking to the future, AI is also bound to strongly propel the leapfrog development of TCM. This requires the TCM community to strengthen strategic planning in aspects such as ideological understanding, infrastructure development, and talent cultivation. Advance AI For AI to generate transformative momentum in TCM, it must be closely aligned with the field’s developmental needs. Current general-purpose AI models remain inadequate for addressing the specific needs of TCM. Consequently, it is imperative to enhance top-level design and systemic coordination, to strengthen interdisciplinary innovative research, to explore TCM’s empirical knowledge, to focus on data quality and standardisation, and to develop domain-specific models and professional-grade intelligent agents for TCM. Utilize AI Real-world adoption serves as the primary engine for sustained innovation and sectoral advancement. It is necessary to enhance research on application AI scenario in TCM. The various fields of TCM, including medical care, education, science and technology, industry, and management, all provide broad scenarios for the application of AI. There is a need to optimize collaborative mechanisms, strengthen policy safeguards and project support, promote the linkage of “government-industry- academia- research-application,” and cultivate emergent "TCM + AI" ecosystems. The future is here. “TCM + AI” represents both a present imperative and a strategic priority for future. To fully harness AI's potential for TCM advancement, we must systematically reconcile the relationships between inheritance and innovation, individuality and commonality, development and security. AI will undoubtedly infuse new vitality into TCM's evolution, revitalizing this ancient healing system for contemporary human healthcare. We call upon experts across TCM, AI, bioengineering, industry leaders, and policymakers, to forge synergistic collaborations that will propel the high-quality development of TCM in the intelligent era. Conflict of interest statement Boli Zhang is the Editor-in-Chief of this journal, and Junhua Zhang and Shilin Chen are the Editorial Board Member of this journal. The other authors declare no conflict of interest. Funding None. Author contributions Junhua Zhang contributed to conceptualization, supervision, and writing original draft. Boli Zhang, Shilin Chen, Xiangmei Chen, Yiyu Cheng, Xiaohui Fan, Jingqing Hu, luqi huang, Zongyou Li, Liang Liu, Xiangfei Meng, Zhaopeng Meng, Jinzhou Tian, Qi Wang, Yi Wang, Fengwen Yang, Junning Zhao, Wenke Zheng, Liguo Zhu reached a consensus through discussion and agreed to publish this manuscript. Ethical approval of studies and informed consent Not applicable. Acknowledgments Thanks to the experts of the Consensus Drafting Group: Chuanhong Chen, Shilin Chen, Xiangmei Chen, Zhong Chen, Haibo Cheng,Yiyu Cheng, Jin-ao Duan, Xiaohui Fan, Jiao Guo, De-an Guo, Haiping Hao, Jianxing He, Jingqing Hu, Luqi Huang, Jiansheng Li, Jie Li, Zheng Li, Zongyou Li, Baoyan Liu, Qingquan Liu, Xiangfei Meng, Zhaopeng Meng, Zhongzhi Qian, Xiangfei Sun Xiaobo Sun, Jianyuan Tang, Xudong Tang, Jinzhou Tian, Qi Wang, Xijun Wang, Yi Wang, Yongjun Wang, Yong Wang, Xiaoke Wu, Xiaohe Xiao, Tian Xie, Yanming Xie, Fengwen Yang, Hua Yang, Zhongqi Yang, Zifeng Yang, Shishan Yu, Weian Yuan, Boli Zhang, Guangji Zhang, Hongchun Zhang, Jiwang Zhang, Junhua Zhang, Weidong Zhang, Yanjun Zhang, Yongxiang Zhang, Zhongde Zhang, Junning Zhao, Liguo Zhu, Mingjun Zhu Data availability None.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it