Standardising embodied diagnostic knowledge: pulse diagnosis terminology in WHO Chinese medicine standards

Pulse diagnosis is a culturally embedded form of medical knowledge in Chinese medicine, combining tactile experience, diagnostic judgement, and conceptual classification. When such knowledge is represented in international terminology standards, translation is not only a linguistic matter but also a process of conceptual standardisation. This study examines how English renderings of Chinese pulse diagnosis terminology are revised across two World Health Organization (WHO) terminology standards. The study compared 49 Chinese pulse diagnosis terms shared by the 2007 International Standard Terminologies on Traditional Medicine in the Western Pacific Region and the 2022 WHO International Standard Terminologies on Traditional Chinese Medicine . Each shared Chinese term was aligned across the two standards, and its English rendering or renderings were recorded. Cross-version changes were classified into three revision types: retention, expansion, and replacement. Frequencies and percentages were calculated descriptively and no inferential statistical tests were used. Seventeen terms were retained without lexical change, accounting for 34.7% of the sample. Eight terms, or 16.3%, were expanded through the addition of one or more English variants. Twenty-four terms, or 49.0%, were replaced by new renderings or new sets of renderings. These patterns show that the later standard does not simply eliminate variation. Instead, it preserves some established forms, adds variants for selected concepts, and reorganises others around new English expressions. The revisions are especially significant for pulse diagnosis because the terms encode tactile qualities, embodied diagnostic procedures, culturally specific imagery, and broader patterns of Chinese medical reasoning. Cross-version variation in WHO pulse diagnosis terminology should not be read only as inconsistency. It provides textual evidence of how culturally embedded medical knowledge is stabilised, revised, and made usable in international communication. The findings suggest that terminology standards should make the status of variants more explicit, including preferred renderings, accepted variants, displaced forms, and brief revision rationales.