Research collection · 2026

Classical Korean-Medicine Sources and Knowledge Reorganization

Source-critical studies of how Korean-medicine knowledge is positioned and reorganized across editions, contexts, and editorial structures.

Editorial status: This is an active collection. Protocols, evidence maps, counter-perspectives, and domain reviews will be added with distinct publication states.

Articles in this collection

working-paperBRC-2026-W003

Where Was Wuling San Placed? Reorganization of the Three Methods for Treating Water in Shanghan Lun Zhu and Shanghan Lun Yi

Shanghan Lun Zhu and Shanghan Lun Yi, both associated with Ke Qin, each present “three methods for treating water” across the upper, middle, and lower burners, yet Wuling San does not occupy the same position. In the inspected Shanghan Lun Zhu witness, Xiao Qing Long Tang, Shi Zao Tang, and Wuling San occupy the upper, middle, and lower positions respectively. In Shanghan Lun Yi, Wuling San is paired with Xiao Qing Long Tang in the upper-burner clause, while Gui Zhi Qu Gui Jia Ling Zhu Tang occupies the lower clause. We compared normalized transcriptions, independent public transcriptions, and facsimile pages. The result shows that the symptom–method–formula arrangement was not stably repeated under the same heading. It does not by itself establish authorial intent, the exact moment of revision, or an edition genealogy. Contemporary formulary and paediatric uses provide secondary context for other editorial units in which Wuling San was invoked.

working-paperBRC-2026-W004

What Observes Insomnia? A Non-equivalent Cross-analysis of Donguibogam and Modern Sleep Measurement

Donguibogam passages on sleeplessness do not collapse experienced wakefulness, restless or unstable sleep, contexts of post-illness debility and age, and explanations such as phlegm and the spirit failing to return to its abode into one layer. Modern insomnia research likewise shows that self-report, sleep diaries, actigraphy, and polysomnography observe sleep through different rules and may disagree. We cross-analysed a normalized and facsimile-checked classical section with one full-text systematic review and two full-text observational studies across four axes: experience, time, recording instrument, and classificatory purpose. The traditions can be compared in their shared act of stratifying sleep problems, but their categories, mechanisms, and measures are not translatable. Classical 不寐 cannot be retrospectively diagnosed as sleep-state misperception, nor can modern device measurement validate 神不歸舍. Integrative research should keep observations apart from the explanations attached to them and clearly mark where the two traditions overlap, differ, or do not correspond.