From Kos to contemporary care: the enduring influence of Hippocratic principles.

Background: Hippocratic medicine is routinely presented as the origin of rational, observational practice. Yet much of what is now called "Hippocratic principles" is a reception history - filtered through Galen, the Alexandrian medical school, and especially Islamic scholars such as Rhazes, Avicenna, and Masawaiyh. To reassess the enduring influence of Hippocratic medicine on contemporary practice and ethics by (i) distinguishing Hippocratic origins from later systematizations, and (ii) thematizing the philosophical stakes of the 21st-century "Hippocratic revival" (holism, patient-centrism, and the surge of non-science-based alternative medicine). Methods: Textual analysis of the Hippocratic Corpus is integrated with a reception-historical review (Galenic, Alexandrian, and Islamic commentators) and with historiographical framing (Porter, Temkin, Nutton). A conceptual analysis contrasts the Koan holistic and Knidian disease-entity approaches and examines their modern legacies. Results: Core Hippocratic themes - clinical observation, individualization, and ethical commitment - persist, but largely via later reinterpretations. The Koan/Knidian split illuminates today's tensions between evidence-based standardization and person-centred holism. Modern invocations of Hippocrates often uncritically legitimate "holism" in ways that can blur boundaries between epistemically disciplined person-centred care and non-science-based alternative medicine. Conclusion: Hippocratic principles endure, but only when historically situated and normatively constrained. A philosophically robust "Hippocratic revival" in the 21st century must (a) acknowledge its Galenic - Islamic mediations, (b) preserve evidence standards, and (c) articulate an ethically grounded, epistemically responsible holism rather than a carte blanche for post-truth medical pluralism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]