Back

Historical Perspectives in Medicine using a Large Language Model: Emulating an 18th Century Physician

Malladi, P.; Eaton, J.; Gleichgerrcht, E.; Chatzistamou, I.; Roark, K.; Kennedy, S. W.; Bonilha, L.

2026-02-12 medical education
10.64898/2026.02.10.26345990 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionEighteenth-century medical texts document a formative period in the evolution of clinical reasoning, yet their integration into modern medical education is limited. The traditional approach to learning the history of medicine has naturally focused on passive reading, but new approaches using AI could enable learners to interrogate and simulate the historical diagnostic logic and therapeutic paradigms. More specifically, large language models (LLMs) offer an opportunity to create interactive simulations that allow experiential engagement with historical medical reasoning. MethodsWe developed a historically constrained LLM-based educational platform designed to emulate the diagnostic reasoning, language, and conceptual frameworks of an 18th-century physician. A modern GPT architecture was customized using strict instruction-based constraints and limited exclusively to a curated corpus of six foundational 17th- 18th century medical texts. Guardrails were implemented to prevent anachronistic terminology and modern medical concepts. Model outputs were evaluated qualitatively by comparing the models diagnoses and treatment plans with published diagnoses and treatment from original 18th century sources. We also applied the simulation to modern clinical vignettes for an illustrative contrast between modern and 18th century approaches. ResultsThe model generated responses that closely aligned with 18th-century medical and rhetorical style, as well as therapeutic reasoning. When presented with historical cases, the simulation demonstrated strong concordance with original diagnoses and management strategies. Secondly, when applied to modern cases, the model described period-appropriate reasoning, highlighting clear contrasts with contemporary biomedical reasoning. ConclusionsAI broadly, and more specifically LLMs configured as historically constrained simulators, can function as effective tools for learning in medical history. This approach could enable active engagement with historical clinical reasoning, fostering critical reflection on the contingent and evolving nature of medical knowledge. Such temporal simulations hold promise for medical humanities education and interdisciplinary teaching.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
12.8%
2
BMC Medical Education
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
3
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.0%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 13%
7.0%
5
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.5%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.5%
7
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.0%
50% of probability mass above
8
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
9
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
10
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.7%
11
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
12
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
13
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
Data in Brief
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
17
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
18
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 34%
1.5%
19
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
20
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
21
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
22
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 33%
0.7%
23
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
25
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
26
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
27
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%