Modeling the Whole Person: Unresolved Questions in Current Medical, Physiological, and Health World Models and a Response from the Human Function World Model

Abstract Background: Medical, physiological, and health world models increasingly predict disease trajectories, treatment responses, and everyday physiological change. Their progress raises a whole-person question: under what computational and evidentiary conditions can their outputs support judgments about the same person across internal regulation, illness, work, learning, personal choices, and longitudinal change?

Methods

A targeted comparison examined selected human-model reports, whole-person initiatives, person-centred frameworks, and fixed materials from the Unified Ontology of Human Function (UOHF) and Human Function World Model (HFWM), supplemented by digital-twin, probabilistic-modeling, complex-system, and model-composition sources. Declared scope, mechanisms, validation, and access limitations were distinguished. Conditional arguments and nine constructed probes motivate matched-information evaluation; no systematic review, participant study, or model benchmark was performed. Analysis: Predictive accuracy, representation sufficient for a stated question, and warranted action are distinct evaluation targets. HFWM retains the whole person as its enduring subject and includes medical and other predictions natively. Its proposed contribution is the coordinated specification of demand, independently supported current capacity, actual engagement, consequences, and the evidence dependencies of judgment and revision. This connects assessment and planning with endogenous change, joint demands, recovery, personal history, and individualized updating. Public-protocol and scheduling examples make limited positive outputs and selective revision inspectable; they do not demonstrate comparative superiority.