1. Introduction
1.1. Homeopathy
Homeopathic medicine is a whole system of health care and therapeutics developed over 200 years ago by Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician [
1]. Although this principle of healing dated from Hippocrates [
2], Hahnemann was the first to systematize it by testing and rigorously documenting symptoms caused by giving medicinal substances to healthy people [
3].
One of the principal distinctions between homeopathy and conventional medicine is homeopathy’s focus on choosing a medicine based on an individual’s unique constellation of symptoms rather than the common symptoms of a named condition [
1]. Although Hahnemann found and documented evidence with this approach, it was significantly more labor intensive than conventional methods, requiring a detailed knowledge of dozens of medicinal substances to match a sick person’s unique symptoms. Homeopaths developed sophisticated indexes to assist them in finding curative remedies for their patients from the earliest days because there were thousands of symptoms associated with each medicinal substance [
4].
Modern-day homeopaths have access to software (sometimes described as repertory software) to help them match the symptoms of their clients to potential remedies [
5]. Even with this resource, identifying a curative remedy can be a labor-intensive process—one that requires a detailed client intake, the ability to focus on multiple body systems at once, and the ability to distinguish between the common symptoms relied on in conventional medicine (e.g., an ear infection with a cough) and the more specific characteristic symptoms that are the pointers to potentially supportive homeopathic remedies (e.g., ear pain that feels better for wrapping up the head and a dry cough triggered by irritation in the larynx) [
6,
7,
8].
1.2. AI in Medicine
Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing medicine in a number of ways. These ways include but are not limited to diagnostic imaging, chatbots, and computer-assisted decision-making for physicians [
9,
10]. While this is a rapidly developing field with possibilities for significant progress in easing the burden of human suffering there is also the potential for misunderstanding and misuse [
11,
12].
Despite the possible risks, developers, practitioners, and consumers alike continue to drive the development of AI tools for medicine. Developers see a profitable, growing industry already worth an estimated
$13.7 billion and expected to grow to
$156.8 billion by 2033 [
13]. Practitioners see the potential of a more efficient use of their time as well as keeping up with technological advances [
14]. Consumers may see benefits such as an increase in empowerment and support for mental health, and there is also a very real and growing problem in access to primary care that will likely continue the demand for AI tools in the regulated field of conventional health and medicine [
12,
15].
1.3. How AI Is Used in Homeopathy
The principal distinction between homeopathy and conventional medicine is homeopathy’s focus on choosing a medicine based on an individual’s unique constellation of symptoms rather than the common symptoms of a named condition [
1]. Homeopaths have long relied on evidence provided in the literature—from homeopathic provings, case reports, or compilations of remedy profiles from experienced practitioners to guide remedy selection. A detailed knowledge of dozens of medicinal substances is difficult for any one practitioner to memorize. However, this knowledge is required to match a sick person’s individual symptoms. Homeopaths have developed sophisticated reference tools to assist them in finding curative remedies for their patients long before the arrival of the digital age [
4].
Expertise is required to successfully manage a homeopathic case. This includes individual client intake, an understanding of the acute illness symptoms and listening to all of the client concerns. These skills do not easily transfer to AI, yet the profession may be well-positioned for the integration of AI tools into some work processes. These processes may include a focus on compiling the multiple types and formats of information available to align the characteristic symptoms of the sick person with the characteristic symptoms of the remedy. The automated remedy finder we used for this investigation, which focuses on acute complaints only, is not designed to mimic the rapport building or empathetic communication that is a critical element of chronic case taking.
Purpose-built online remedy finders of varying levels of sophistication and cost are available. At the time of our research, these included ABCHomeopathy.com [
16], Homeopathic Housecall [
17], and Remedeo [
18]. These tools have the same potential attraction as other online conventional AI medical tools—the prospect of increased access to information to guide choices to improve the level of health of a sick person. However, little is known about how accurate these tools are, how the models are validated, and the degree to which they can replace the professional guidance of a live homeopath.
1.4. Current Questions
While purpose-built homeopathic remedy finders are designed to reflect remedy profiles available in the homeopathic literature, it is unknown whether the remedy recommendations provided by these tools are similar to recommendations given by live practitioners when presented with similar real-world symptoms. There are also questions about non-remedy-related recommendations from automated homeopathy tools, including the types of complaints the automated tools can effectively cover, what guidance is provided on remedy potency and dosage frequency, and when to seek a licensed health care provider.
This research presents the findings from a comparison of acute complaints managed by a live homeopathy teaching clinic to one commercially available, purpose-built AI homeopathic remedy finder’s recommendations generated for acute complaints. The comparison included the types of complaints covered, medical disclaimers, remedy recommendations, and posology (i.e., recommendations on remedy potency, frequency, and delivery method).
1.5. Aim
The primary aim of this study is to investigate the degree to which automated homeopathic remedy recommendations for acute complaints overlap with remedy recommendations from a live practitioner. For this preliminary inquiry, researchers chose one of several purpose-built remedy finders based on a methodological review of several similar tools. The tool chosen to investigate by this research team was based upon its commercial availability and simplicity of use for consumers, and that it is an electronic version of an 18th century initiative by the prominent American homeopath Constantine Hering. A secondary aim of this investigation was to better understand how basic case management issues are handled by an automated remedy finder. An additional aim was to generate spin-off research questions for further investigation in this field. The research illustrated how real data can be used to assess the accuracy of an automated tool as well as the inherent challenges and limitations of the process.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
This comparative retrospective study compared remedy recommendations for 100 previous acute clinic clients from the Academy of Homeopathy Education (AHE) [
19] teaching clinic, part of HOHM Foundation [
20] against a commercially available online remedy finder [
17].
2.2. Procedures
Inclusion criteria were identified a priori to the research. There were 307 unique cases that met the initial inclusion criteria (described below) for this retrospective case comparison. An online random number generator from Calculator.net was utilized to randomize the pool of cases. Of those cases selected through randomization, each case was then individually assessed to determine whether at least one of the symptoms of the case matched a complaint category listed by the online remedy finder. Researchers used the information provided in the case notes to answer the online remedy finder’s automated questionnaire for the first assigned complaint. Answers to each question were logged as well as the remedy recommendations provided by the online tool. If one of the remedy recommendations provided by the online tool matched the remedy recommendation made by the live clinicians, the comparison was considered complete for that case. If there was no remedy match with the first complaint, researchers analyzed the case a second time using the second assigned complaint where possible. This occurred 25 times over the course of 100 cases analyzed. Researchers compared 125 discrete complaints between the online remedy finder and the clinician notes.
2.3. Participants
Clients come to the clinic at AHE in a number of ways. The client cases selected for this study were either self-referred, recommended by other clients, recommended by students at AHE, by other homeopaths or health practitioners, or from online homeopathy study groups. There were no demographic restrictions. Clients could be of any gender, age, or background. Clients had their cases taken either by AHE’s clinical instructors, or by advanced students under supervision. Consent for use of clinical data for research purposes was collected at the initial case intake. A total number of 119 acute cases were reviewed for inclusion. 19 cases were excluded based upon the a priori inclusion/exclusion criteria, leaving 100 cases as the study sample. There were 25 cases (25%) in which 2 distinct client complaints could be mapped to 2 distinct online remedy finder complaints, and 29 cases (29%) in which there was no remedy match with no alternate complaint available to run through the online program.
2.4. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Acute case records were selected based on the following apriori criteria:
Any client of any age who sought homeopathic care for acute complaints at the AHE teaching clinic during the years 2022–2023.
Cases selected had complete case data and had at least 1 follow-up consultation.
Cases selected where the client reported compliance with taking the remedy.
Cases where initial and follow-up remedy response scores were complete.
Cases where initial and follow-up ‘Measure Yourself Concerns and Well-being’ (MYCaW) scale [
21] scores were complete.
To be included in this study, a suitable predefined complaint category needed to neatly cover at least one of the MYCaW concerns. Cases were excluded if either MYCaW concern could not confidently be matched to a complaint category.
2.5. Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to quantify the results of the comparisons between the AI tool and the clinic data. This was planned to emphasize the nature of the research being conducted. The research questions focused on a small sample of outcomes from a comparison between a practitioner lead clinic and an AI tool. The outcomes planned and measured were as follows:
Overlap between the clinic and online remedy recommendations.
Comparison of where the AHE-recommended remedy appeared in the prioritized list of remedies recommended by the online remedy finder.
Range and frequency of complaints used in the comparison to assess the accuracy of the findings.
The types of complaints for which there were top matches with the online remedy finder as well as the remedies used.
3. Results
3.1. Complaints Covered
The 16 complaints covered by medical disclaimers were:
3.2. Complaints Excluded
There were 100 cases identified in the random selection for the study. Of these, fifteen cases were excluded from because the acute complaints prioritized by the clinic clients in the MYCaW were not covered by the automated remedy finder (
Table 1).
3.3. Medical Disclaimer
A total of 16 of the 74 possible complaints covered by the automated remedy finder included a medical disclaimer before proceeding to the questionnaire. This statement was directed at anyone selecting the target complaint regardless of that complaint’s severity in the individual. In comparison, in the live clinic cases selected, there was the possibility that while any complaint could warrant a referral to medical care, only one was deemed serious enough to pause homeopathic care and refer to a medical provider. Live practitioners saw cases of COVID-19 (10 cases), traumatic injuries (3 cases), and allergic reactions (1 case) in which homeopathic care was not paused. For COVID-19 cases, clinicians had access to a red flag guide developed by a licensed medical practitioner to assess when the client needed to seek immediate medical care.
The medical disclaimer was worded as follows: People with the condition you have indicated should seek medical attention as soon as possible. Please ensure that medical help has already been administered or has been summoned before proceeding to search for a remedy. A homeopathic remedy may be helpful on the way to the hospital, but this tool is no substitute for trained, experienced, in-person medical assistance.
3.4. Overall Remedy Match Rates (Live Practitioner vs. Automated Online Remedy Finder)
Symptoms from the 100 clinic cases reviewed fell into 22 of the 74 complaint categories covered by the automated remedy finder (see
Appendix A). In the 100 cases compared, the automated online remedy finder included the AHE practitioner recommended remedy 59% of the time (see
Table 2). There was a wide variance in the remedy match rate according to the complaint. The highest remedy match rate with multiple cases were COVID-19 and ear infections, each of which had an 80% match rate and one case in which there was a top match with the live practitioner. There were more COVID-19 cases than ear infections overall (10 cases vs. 5 cases). The lowest match rate with multiple cases was influenza, with no successful remedy matches in the 11 cases analyzed (see
Table 2). The highest remedy match rates in individual case examples were seen in kidney stones, nausea of pregnancy, and sprains/strains, where there was a 100% match rate between the online remedy finder and the live practitioner.
Of the cases seen by the AHE clinic practitioners, 29 (23.2%) cases included a cough. This was more than any other complaint with a remedy match in 14 cases, or 48.3% for coughs overall (see
Table 2). Common colds were also frequent, with 21 cases, or 16.8%, with a remedy match in 12 cases, or 57.1% overall. The next most frequent complaints were sore throat/hoarseness (16 cases or 12.8%), influenza (11 cases or 8.8%), COVID-19 (10 cases or 8%), headaches (6 cases or 4.8%), ear infections (5 cases or 4%), and conjunctivitis (4 cases or 3.2%). Less frequent but still occurring in more than one case were nausea and vomiting, traumatic injury, and urinary tract infections (3 cases of each or 2.4%), and dental complications, dizziness, traumatic injuries and teething (2 cases each or 1.6%). There were only single cases of allergic reaction, contact dermatitis, diarrhea, impetigo, insomnia, kidney stone, nausea of pregnancy, and sprains/strains, of which each single case represented 0.8% of the 125 total complaints analyzed.
3.5. Accuracy of Online Remedy Finder vs. Live Practitioner Recommendations
The online remedy finder provides the user a list of remedy recommendations in order of priority after the user has answered the algorithm-driven questions associated with the specific complaint. It was found that of the 100 cases compared there were 37 occasions in which the AHE clinic recommended remedy was among the top three online recommended remedies (see
Table 2 and
Table 3), including 17 cases in which the first remedy selected by the AHE Clinic and the online remedy finder coincided (see
Table 2 and
Table 3).
There were 17 occasions that the AHE clinic practitioner remedy recommendation was the same as the top recommended remedy in the online remedy finder. Of these 17 instances, drilling deeper into the presenting complaints in these cases, it was found that 6 of those cases related to coughs, 3 related to common colds, 2 related to sore throats and 1 instance each was found for COVID-19, ear infections, headaches, UTI’s, nausea and sprains (see
Table 2 and
Table 3).
Coughs generated the highest number of cases in which the top remedy recommendation from the online remedy finder algorithm matched the practitioner-recommended remedy, a total of six cases (see
Table 1 and
Table 3). Coughs were also the most frequently analyzed complaint in this study, with 29 cases overall, so when compared against the total number of cough cases, the top matches totaled only 23.2% (see
Table 1). A more detailed view of cough cases is outlined in
Appendix D.
Six of the 17 top remedy matches were the only top matches in their complaint category: COVID-19, ear infection, headache, nausea of pregnancy, strain/sprain, and UTI (See
Table 1). Except for COVID-19, a complaint associated with 10 cases in total, the remaining complaints yielding top remedy matches consisted of six or fewer cases analyzed overall (see
Table 1).
Two of the complaints that resulted in a top remedy match with the online remedy finder algorithm—nausea of pregnancy and sprains and strains—were the only cases in their respective complaint categories, resulting in a 100% overall match rate for the respective complaint categories. There were no complaints for which there were multiple case examples that resulted in a similarly perfect match rate (see
Table 2).
Cases that resulted in a top remedy match did so with different homeopathic remedies, including cases in which different remedies were recommended for the same complaint (particularly coughs, the most frequent complaint seen in the study) as well as the same remedy being used for different complaints (see
Table 3).
Cases that resulted in a top remedy match also did so with varying numbers of remedies recommended in total, including for the same complaint. For example, there were between 3 and 12 remedies recommended for cough cases depending on the answers provided in the questionnaire (See
Table 4). Case # 55, a COVID-19 case that yielded
Arnica as a top recommendation, was the first of 16 remedies recommended in total (see
Table 4).
4. Discussion
4.1. Remedy Overlap/Case Management
The findings of this study show that the purpose-built homeopathic remedy finder is not a one-to-one replacement for a live practitioner. There is frequently an overlap between algorithm-generated acute remedy recommendations as well as general guidance provided on important issues such as how to take a homeopathic remedy (see
Appendix B) and when to seek a licensed health care provider. However, in 41% of the cases analyzed, there was no remedy overlap at all, even with multiple algorithm-generated remedy recommendations. In addition, there is no guidance on situations that often arise in acute case management, such as how to manage an aggravation of symptoms after a potentially good remedy is given in too strong a potency or how to maintain healing momentum when the indicated remedy is still needed but its effectiveness stalls. While there were 17 out of 100 cases in which the practitioner-recommended remedy was the top suggestion by the automated remedy finder, depending on the complaint there were anywhere between 1 and 20 remedy recommendations. This has the practical effect of outsourcing the work of differentiating potential remedies to the sick individual. Although each remedy possibility is accompanied by a short description of the conditions under which it may be helpful for the given complaint, this is a potentially burdensome task, particularly when someone is ill.
4.2. Validation of the Tools
This study also highlights the challenge and importance of validating remedy recommendations against real-world cases. The automated remedy finder we compared covers 74 acute complaints, and the sample set of 100 randomly selected cases from the AHE clinic covered only 22 of them, clustering mostly around coughs, colds, sore throats, influenza, and COVID-19. A brief analysis of coughs—the most common complaint investigated in this study—can be found in
Appendix C. Finding real-world data to validate just the automated remedy finder’s algorithm would require far more cases than this small study. As purpose-built tools become more developed, this validation will be needed to add credibility to remedy recommendations. However, the collection of the data needed to improve the model will ultimately require both the consent and participation of the users, and the full buy-in for robust validation processes by the tools’ creators and owners. While the automated remedy finder does have a way for users to report on whether the remedy they took was supportive, this is an ‘optional’ feature of the software we investigated, and it is unclear how robustly users provide feedback necessary to “train” the model. No such mechanism appears to exist for commercially available large language models (LLMs), which can be used for free by anyone interested in obtaining homeopathic remedy recommendations. We know little about this phenomenon, but we believe it to be an important area of future research.
The 59% overall remedy match rate found during the study is due to many factors, including the limitations of the study design—however, there are likely other factors as well. For example, during the study, many answers to the questions asked were “not applicable” or “none of the above” or “I don’t know.” While this phenomenon was no doubt due in part to the fact that the researchers were working from case notes, a robust validation process could identify and minimize low impact questions from live users (i.e., targeted questions unlikely to elicit a positive answer that points to a certain remedy or group of remedies) and identify and maximize high impact questions from live users (i.e., targeted questions that are likely to lead to a positive answer that points to a certain remedy or set of remedies). This is, after all, the promise of AI—a sophisticated algorithm that “learns” based on information provided to it.
4.3. Empowerment of Users
The automated remedy finder was designed to handle acute, self-limiting complaints only. This may ultimately be the best-use scenario for AI tools in the field of homeopathy, following on a long American family tradition of home prescribing [
1]. Many of the more sophisticated interview techniques and case management skills required for the successful understanding and management of chronic cases are less critical in the context of acute complaints, so there is a greater potential to play on the strengths of automation without risking the downsides of outsourcing complex care to automated tools that are simply not up to the task. However, the guardrails in place with automated remedy finders are not present in commercially available LLMs, which will provide remedy recommendations on both straightforward acute complaints as well as more complex and serious chronic complaints, such as suicidal depression. The potential risks of outsourcing health care to automated models, a phenomenon which is highly possible given growing public dissatisfaction with the conventional medical system [
22,
23], calls for self-empowerment in health care [
24,
25], and mutual informal health care support from social media groups [
26,
27] with its unknown impacts and consequences needs to be researched in order to be more fully understood.
4.4. Limitations
There were a number of limitations in the study design that likely affected its outcome, the most important of which was that the symptom information entered into the automated questionnaire came from written case notes, not directly from the symptomatic individual. This frequently led to a situation in which researchers had to enter null answers, such as “I don’t know,” “Not applicable,” or “No” as an answer in the automated questionnaire because there was no information in the case notes relating to certain questions. A good example of this was a multiple choice question in the Sore throat/Hoarseness category, which contained the question, “Are the tonsils affected? (Look on either side of the tongue in the back of the mouth) (choose all that apply).” Unless there was specific information in the case notes about this symptom (which a symptomatic individual would have easily been able to answer by looking at their own throat), researchers had to enter a null answer, which in this case was “No, the tonsils are not visible or appear as they normally do”.
This structural limitation likely decreased the amount of relevant information fed into the automated questionnaire, which in turn may have lowered the match rate, albeit by an unknown amount. In the Sore throat/hoarseness category, for example, the positive remedy match rate was 10/16, or 62.5%, with 9/16 (56%) of the remedy matches appearing in the top three results from the algorithm. However, 63% of the answers entered into the algorithm were negative/null answers. While a symptomatic individual would have also entered negative and null answers, there would almost certainly have been a lower percentage. The question of how to optimize an algorithm to minimize low impact questions (i.e., questions more likely to result in a negative/null answer) is an important but separate question beyond the scope of this paper. An initial investigation into this general phenomenon is discussed with reference to the questionnaire for coughs in
Appendix C, but the results were inconclusive because the sample numbers were so low.
Another limitation of the study is the underlying assumption that live practitioners consistently gave good remedy recommendations that ameliorated the complaint. While the overall results of the clinic were positive—81.6% of the cases resulted in “resolved” or “much better” (see
Appendix D), these ratings were collected at the end of the encounter with clients, which often involved more than one remedy recommendation throughout the course of treatment. To more accurately determine the effect of the first remedy recommendation (i.e., the recommendation used to compare against the algorithm recommendations), a more focused study would be required that excluded cases in which there were not clear improvements with the first recommended remedy.
An additional limitation relates to evaluation of criteria for inclusion or exclusion in the study. Each researcher responsible for evaluation of inclusion criteria did so independently. Inclusion/exclusion decisions were then made based on a comparison of researcher decisions. In cases where there was a conflict of decision, particular care was taken to avoid speculation about what led to certain remedy selection. Agreement was reached on case inclusion/exclusion before continuing with further analysis. Researchers had access to case notes that went beyond the live practitioners’ initial remedy recommendations, which could have skewed the results if included. However, this adherence to providing answers based only on the text in the case notes from the initial case notes likely resulted in a higher percentage of negative/null answers, which may have decreased the likelihood of remedy matches.
This study was limited by the number of cases used in the study. In order to evaluate the algorithm for any of the covered complaints, a significantly larger number of cases would need to be analyzed. The resulting remedy match rates, when categorized by complaint, vary widely according to how many cases were run through the algorithm (see
Table 2). The complaint with the most cases—coughs—resulted in a remedy match in 16 of 29 cases tested (55%).
5. Conclusions
Limitations aside, this study is the first to compare the recommendations of live homeopathy practitioners to an online automated remedy finder.
Overall, the automated remedy finder provided a clear framework for acute prescribing by asking targeted questions for a limited set of acute complaints that can safely be treated at home, with basic guidance on how to take the remedy and built-in warnings for when to seek care from a licensed health care provider. The automated remedy finder was not able to go beyond basic recommendations in these areas, however, so commonly encountered situations in ‘real-world’ acute case management—such as remedy aggravations and potency stalls—were not covered.
The primary aim of this study, which was to compare remedy recommendations between an automated remedy finder and a live practitioner, showed significant gaps between live and automated remedy recommendations. Even in cases of remedy overlap, the final remedy differentiation is left to the user, who is asked to analyze his/her symptoms against the characteristics of anywhere between 1 and 20 remedy recommendations. This finding—let alone the additional skills necessary to successfully manage a case once a remedy is chosen—demonstrates that at present there is no equivalent substitute for a guided homeopathic interview from a live practitioner that results in a single remedy recommendation that can be altered as needed depending on the remedy response.
There is a potential role for more advanced AI tools to be employed in homeopathic prescribing. Emerging AI technology has the potential to compile feedback from real-world remedy responses, providing for the possibility of validation. The potential of emerging AI technology to assist in sifting through large amounts of literature and to “learn” based on feedback from remedy recommendations provides the possibility for evidence-based prescribing that could move the profession forward, most likely in the context of acute complaints. As a consequence, there are innumerable further future research investigations that emerge. Replicating the aim of this research using large language models is an obvious next step. Investigating the challenges of training of LLMs is another. The privacy concerns of using real world health data are a clear challenge.
The investigators did not assume that the online remedy finder used for this study is comparable to other commercially available remedy finders. Future investigations could reveal significant differences between different commercial products. However, the structural questions about the nature of complaints covered, how to elicit valuable answers to questions in a way that points to potentially supportive remedies, how to incorporate feedback to improve model accuracy, and patient safety/case management limitations would have been applicable to any model investigated. The purpose of this study, therefore, was not to evaluate a specific remedy finder but rather to explore the phenomenon of AI in homeopathy and begin a discussion.
As artificial intelligence tools continue to evolve, there are important considerations for homeopathic prescribing. While there are exciting possibilities, it will be important to find ways to take advantage of the things that AI tools can do well without sacrificing the things that only homeopathic practitioners are uniquely positioned to do.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.C.G. and C.D.L.; data curation R.D. and P.P.; formal analysis C.D.L., R.D. and P.P.; methodology, R.D., A.C.G. and P.P.; writing—original draft preparation R.D., A.C.G. and P.P.; writing—review and editing R.D., A.C.G., P.P., C.D.L. and D.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine (CCNMREB057.Gray on 4 March 2025).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to patient privacy restrictions.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. HOHM Foundation was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AHE | Academy of Homeopathy Education |
LLM | Large language models |
Appendix A. Complaints Covered by Automated Remedy Finder
Symptoms from the 100 clinic cases reviewed fell into 22 of the 74 complaint categories covered by the automated remedy finder (each case had 2 possible symptoms, and a total of 125 symptoms were run through the automated remedy finder):
Cough (29 cases);
Common cold (21 cases);
Sore throat/hoarseness (16 cases);
Influenza (11 cases);
COVID-19 (10 cases);
Headache (6 cases);
Ear infection (5 cases);
Conjunctivitis (4 cases);
Nausea/vomiting (3 cases);
Traumatic injuries (3 cases);
UTI (3 cases);
Dental complications (2 cases);
Dizziness (2 cases);
Teething (2 cases);
Allergic reaction (1 case);
Contact dermatitis (1 case);
Diarrhea (1 case);
Impetigo (1 case);
Insomnia (1 case);
Kidney stones (1 case);
Nausea of pregnancy (1 case);
Strains and sprains (1 case).
Appendix B. Posology Instructions from Purpose-Built Online Homeopathic Remedy Finder [28]
Appendix B.1. How to Give a Remedy
Homœopathic remedies come in different prepared strengths called “potencies.” The C potencies are the most common. Stores often carry two racks of remedies, one 6C and one 30C (Some remedies, like Arnica montana, may be available in a separate rack at the higher 200C potency).
In most acute illnesses, any potency of the correct remedy will be effective. A lower potency (6C, for example) may need to be repeated more often than a higher potency.
If you have a choice of potencies:
Use a 6C potency when the symptoms are mild, if the person is very sensitive (i.e., has allergies) or if you are not positive of the match between the remedy description and the person’s symptoms.
Use a 30C potency when the symptoms are a bit clearer or stronger, or if there is a good match between the remedy description and the person’s symptoms.
Use a 200C potency (where available) when the symptoms are strong and the remedy description matches the person’s symptoms perfectly.
Wondering how many pellets of a remedy to take? Just follow the instructions we give you.
Appendix B.2. Managing the Dose
Here’s the remedy management page:
Abdominal bloating/flatulence
Allergic rhinitis
Anticipatory anxiety
Bell’s palsy
Bone fracture
Brooding
Bruising
Burns
Bursitis
Chest pain
Chickenpox
Circulatory shock
Cold sores
Colic
Croup
Crush injuries
Diaper rash
Drowning
Ear pain, external
Eruptive fevers
Fainting
Fright or panic
Frostbite
Gout
Grief
Head injury/concussion
Heartbreak
Heartburn
Hemorrhoids
Herpes genitalis
Hiccough (in children)
Hot flashes
Insect bites/puncture wounds
Intercostal neuralgia
Laryngitis
Mastitis
Menstrual cramping
Motion sickness
Mouth sores
Mumps
Nosebleed
Pleurisy
Poisoning (food or alcohol)
Post-shingles pain
Sciatica
Separation anxiety
Singles (Herpes Zoster)
Styes
Toothache
Vaginal discharge
Warts
Wounds to skin
Appendix B.3. Managing a Remedy Dose
Appendix B.3.1. Repeating an Effective Dose
The remedy worked! Yay! Now, how often do I give it? The universal rule is this: As long as improvement continues, do not repeat the remedy. When improvement stalls, as long as the fundamental character of the symptoms have not changed (only the intensity), that is the time to give another dose. The closer a person gets to full recovery, the less often they should need to take the remedy.
Appendix B.3.2. Nothing Happened, What Do I Do?
If you observed no change in the person’s symptoms after one dose of the remedy, and you have allowed a reasonable amount of time for the remedy to act, you probably want to give one more dose of that remedy before changing remedies. If nothing happens after two doses, consider another remedy from your results.
Appendix B.3.3. When to Change a Remedy
If a remedy is not effective after two doses, there is probably a better match for the person’s symptoms. Likewise, if the fundamental character of the symptoms changes, it is time to look for a new remedy based on the new symptoms.
Appendix C. Analysis of Cough Complaints—Comparison Between Purpose-Built Online Homeopathic Remedy Finder and Live HHN Practitioners
Coughs were the most frequently featured complaint, representing 29 of the 125 complaints run through the HH algorithm.
14/29 (48%) of the cases including a cough were a match with HHN recommended remedies.
9/29 (31%) of the HH matches put the HHN recommended remedy among the top 3 HH rx choices,
3/29 (10%) of the HH matches put the HHN-recommended remedy among the bottom 3 HH rx choices.
Every cough questionnaire included the following questions:
What seems to trigger the cough?
How does the cough sound? (choose all that apply)
Do any of the following happen with the cough? (choose all that apply)
Is the person coughing up phlegm?
If the person is an infant, is the child having difficulty nursing because of the mucus blocking the nose?
Is the cough causing pain anywhere? (choose all that apply)
If the person is coughing up phlegm, do any of these phrases describe the phlegm?
Which of the following statements, if any, are true of the person’s cough? (choose all that apply)
Does the person want to blow their nose after coughing?
Did the cough start after an asthma attack?
Did the cough appear since a cold or other respiratory infection?
Does the person hold their chest when they cough?
What time of day, if any, is the cough worse? (choose all that apply)
Which of the following circumstances, if any, make the cough better? (choose all that apply)
Depending on answers to previous questions, the questionnaire sometimes included the following questions:
(if dry cough is selected) Is the cough mainly dry at night and loose during the day?
(if loose cough is selected) Is the cough mainly loose in the morning?
(if the cough is causing pain) Is it a burning pain?
(if the cough is occurring in fits and attacks) Do the attacks or fits come rapidly after one another?
(If the cough is worse in the morning) Is the cough worse in mornings and at 11pm?
(if the cough is worse lying down) Is the cough only worse when lying on the left side?
Case # 280 triggered the highest number of questions (18) but did not have a remedy match with the live practitioner. Ten of the 18 questions asked in this case resulted in negative or null answers, which was 55.56%.
Overall, the negative/null answers for coughs averaged 67.34%.
Cases that successfully matched a remedy with a practitioner had a lower percentage of negative/null answers: 64.5%.
Cases that had a top remedy match with a practitioner averaged 68.13% null answers
Appendix D. Table of 100 Cases—Comparison Between Purpose-Built Online Homeopathic Remedy Finder and Live HHN Practitioners
Randomized Case Number | HH 1st Complaint Used | HHN RX | RX Match? | HH 2nd Complaint Used | 2nd Complaint RX Match? | Remedy Response Scale Change Intake/Case Closed |
---|
32 | Cough | Phos | yes | | | resolved |
8 | Cough | Puls | yes | | | resolved |
109 | headache | Bry | no | COVID-19 | yes | resolved |
273 | Sore throat/ hoarseness | Lach | yes | | | much better |
169 | N/A | Merc | | sore throat/hoarseness | Yes | |
258 | N/A | Puls | | cough | Yes | resolved |
48 | cough | Dros | yes | | | resolved |
108 | common cold | Kali-bi | yes | | | much better |
50 | headache | Bell | yes | | | somewhat better |
64 | COVID-19 | Phos | Yes | | | much better |
47 | COVID-19 | Puls | yes | | | much better |
118 | sore throat/ hoarseness | Lyc | yes | | | resolved |
159 | headache | Bry | yes | | | resolved |
261 | cough | Phos | yes | | | resolved |
190 | cough | Bry | yes | | | resolved |
86 | common cold | Phos | no | cough | Yes | resolved |
42 | common cold | Nux-v | yes | | | resolved |
222 | cough | Puls | yes | | | somewhat better |
124 | cough | Dros | yes | | | somewhat better |
14 | common cold | Puls | yes | | | much better |
152 | ear infection | Puls | yes | | | much better |
20 | cough | Kali-bi | no | common cold | yes | resolved |
296 | cough | Puls | yes | | | much better |
37 | common cold | Nux-v | yes | | | much better |
111 | kidney stone | Berb | yes | | | unresolved |
18 | cough | Sulph | yes | | | resolved |
206 | influenza | Puls | no | common cold | yes | resolved |
154 | sore throat/ hoarseness | Lach | yes | | | |
145 | N/A | Cham | yes | teething | yes | much better |
55 | COVID-19 | Ars | yes | | | much better |
235 | dizziness | Arn | no | traumatic injury | yes | somewhat better |
216 | common cold | Puls | yes | | | much better |
189 | traumatic injuries | Arn | yes | | | much better |
132 | common cold | Puls | yes | | | somewhat better |
123 | conjunctivitis | Puls | yes | | | much better |
250 | ear infection | Acon | yes | | | resolved |
191 | sore throat/ hoarseness | Hep | yes | | | resolved |
66 | COVID19 | Sulph | yes | | | resolved |
84 | COVID19 | Phos | yes | | | resolved |
1 | N/A | Ars | | common cold | yes | resolved |
139 | nausea of pregnancy | Sep | yes | | | resolved |
116 | nausea and vomiting | Cocc | yes | | | somewhat better |
241 | sore throat/ hoarseness | Lach | yes | | | much better |
238 | ear infection | Merc | yes | | | resolved |
7 | COVID19 | Bry | yes | | | much better |
218 | common cold | Puls | yes | | | no response |
178 | cough | Spong | yes | | | much better |
93 | influenza | Bell | no | ear infection | yes | much better |
197 | cough | Phos | yes | | | somewhat better |
129 | cough | Puls | no | Headache | yes | much better |
283 | sore throat/ hoarseness | Merc | yes | | | resolved |
174 | cough | Dros | yes | | | much better |
51 | influenza | Puls | no | COVID-19 | yes | much better |
223 | traumatic injuries | Rhus-t | no | strains/sprains | yes | resolved |
303 | common cold | Lach | no | sore throat/hoarseness | yes | resolved |
76 | Urinary tract infection | Canth | yes | | | unresolved |
279 | sore throat | Puls | no | common cold | yes | resolved |
166 | influenza | Puls | no | common cold | yes | resolved |
79 | sore throat/ hoarseness | Lach | yes | | | resolved |
10 | Sore throat/ hoarseness | Calc-c | no | Headache | no | blank |
115 | Insomnia | Ip | no | cough | no | resolved |
307 | cough | Coc-c | no | N/A | | no response |
162 | cough | Calc-c | no | N/A | | resolved |
274 | urinary tract infection | Puls | no | N/A | | somewhat better |
271 | N/A | Phos | | Headache | no | resolved |
133 | dizziness | Nux-v | no | sore throat/ hoarseness | no | somewhat better |
237 | sore throat/ hoarseness | Ars | no | N/A | | much better |
246 | nausea and vomiting | Phos | no | influenza | no | resolved |
220 | urinary tract infection | Puls | no | N/A | | resolved |
211 | cough | Kali-c | no | common cold | no | much better |
73 | Sore throat/ hoarseness | Lyc | no | conjunctivitis | no | much better |
290 | conjunctivitis | Sil | no | N/A | | much better |
193 | cough | Kali-c | no | N/A | | resolved |
184 | Sore throat/ hoarseness | Kali-bi | no | N/A | | much better |
57 | dental complications | Calen | no | N/A | | somewhat better |
278 | COVID19 | Bry | no | cough | no | much better |
106 | cough | Acon | no | teething | no | resolved |
72 | COVID19 | Kali-c | no | common cold | no | much better |
100 | ear infection | Sil | no | N/A | | resolved |
134 | N/A | Samb | | cough | no | resolved |
175 | cough | Bell | no | influenza | | resolved |
286 | N/A | Bell | | allergic reaction | no | much better |
243 | common cold | Kali-c | no | N/A | | somewhat better |
77 | N/A | Op | no | diarrhea | no | somewhat better |
265 | influenza | Puls | no | N/A | | resolved |
29 | impetigo | Calc-c | no | N/A | | much better |
301 | conjunctivitis | Bell | no | N/A | | resolved |
121 | dental complications | Merc | no | N/A | | resolved |
49 | influenza | Sil | no | common cold | no | resolved |
251 | cough | Sang | No | Client did not list 2nd symptom | | resolved |
83 | N/A | Calc-c | no | cough | no | resolved |
75 | contact dermatitis | Apis | no | N/A | | resolved |
249 | common cold | Sil | no | N/A | | somewhat better |
26 | influenza | Nux-v | no | N/A | | much better |
207 | N/A | Merc | | influenza | no | resolved |
23 | sore throat/ hoarseness | Ars | no | N/A | | resolved |
280 | cough | Puls | no | N/A | | resolved |
192 | cough | Ferr-p | no | Client did not list 2nd symptom | | resolved |
22 | common cold | Nat-m | no | N/A | | resolved |
112 | influenza | Bell | no | common cold | no | resolved |
References
- Winston, J. The Faces of Homeopathy: An Illustrated History of the First 200 Years; Great Auk Publishing: Tawa, New Zealand, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Schmidt, J.M. Similia similibus curentur: Theory, history, and status of the constitutive principle of homeopathy. Homeopathy 2021, 110, 212–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Morrell, P. A Brief Biography of Samuel Hahnemann. 2002. Available online: http://homeoint.org/morrell/articles/biohahnemann.htm (accessed on 15 June 2025).
- Dimitriadis, G. Prologue of the Boenninghausen Repertory; Hpathy: Jaipur, India, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Gray, A.C.; Pracjek, P.; Straiges, D. Attitudes to and uptake of repertory software in homeopathy clinical practice—Results of an international survey. Homeopathy 2023, 112, 097–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gray, A.C. Case Taking: Best Practice and Creating Meaning in the Consulting Room; B. Jain Publishers Pvt. Limited: New Delhi, India, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Gray, A.C. Case Taking. Homoeopath. Links 2013, 26, 216–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, B. The Homeopathic Conversation; Natural Medicine Press: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Bajwa, J.; Munir, U.; Nori, A.; Williams, B. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Transforming the practice of medicine. Future Healthc. J. 2021, 8, e188–e194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Al-Antari, M.A. Artificial intelligence for medical diagnostics—Existing and future AI technology! Diagnostics 2023, 13, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beam, A.L.; Drazen, J.M.; Kohane, I.S.; Leong, T.Y.; Manrai, A.K.; Rubin, E.J. Artificial intelligence in medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2023, 388, 1220–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chustecki, M. Benefits and risks of AI in health care: Narrative review. Interact. J. Med. Res. 2024, 13, e53616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Market.US. AI in Medicine Market. 2024. Available online: https://media.market.us/ai-in-medicine-market-news-2024/ (accessed on 24 June 2025).
- Press, M.C. AI in Healthcare: The Future of Patient Care and Health Management. 2024. Available online: https://mcpress.mayoclinic.org/healthy-aging/ai-in-healthcare-the-future-of-patient-care-and-health-management/ (accessed on 24 June 2025).
- Kohane, I.S. Compared with what? Measuring AI against the health care we have. N. Engl. J. Med. 2024, 391, 1564–1566. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Homeopathy, ABC. 2025. Available online: https://abchomeopathy.com/go-classic.php (accessed on 24 June 2025).
- HomeoAide. Homeopathic Housecall. 2025. Available online: https://www.homeopathichousecall.com/ (accessed on 24 June 2025).
- Remedeo. 2025. Available online: https://www.myremedeo.com/ (accessed on 24 June 2025).
- Academy of Homeopathy Education. 2024. Available online: https://academyofhomeopathyeducation.com/ (accessed on 31 July 2025).
- HOHM Foundation. 2024. Available online: https://hohmfoundation.org/ (accessed on 31 July 2025).
- Paterson, C.; Thomas, K.; Manasse, A.; Cooke, H.; Peace, G. Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW): An individualised questionnaire for evaluating outcome in cancer support care that includes complementary therapies. Complement. Ther. Med. 2007, 15, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Filip, R.; Puscaselu, R.G.; Anchidin-Norocel, L.; Dimian, M.; Savage, W.K. Global challenges to public health care systems during the COVID-19 pandemic: A review of pandemic measures and problems. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adams, J.; Andrews, G.; Barnes, J. Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine: An International Reader; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Halvorsen, K.; Dihle, A.; Hansen, C.; Nordhaug, M.; Jerpseth, H.; Tveiten, S.; Joranger, P.; Knutsen, I.R. Empowerment in healthcare: A thematic synthesis and critical discussion of concept analyses of empowerment. Patient Educ. Couns. 2020, 103, 1263–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nursyafitri, E.; Wantiyah, W.; Sutawardana, J.H. Self empowerment in patient with chronic disease: A literature review. NurseLine J. 2021, 6, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, I.S.S.; Mcgill, K.; Malden, S.; Wilson, C.; Pearce, C.; Kaner, E.; Vines, J.; Aujla, N.; Lewis, S.; Restocchi, V.; et al. Examining the social networks of older adults receiving informal or formal care: A systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2023, 23, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carstensen, N.; Mudhar, M.; Munksgaard, F.S. ‘Let communities do their work’: The role of mutual aid and self-help groups in the COVID-19 pandemic response. Disasters 2021, 45, S146–S173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Homeopathic HouseCall. How to Give a Remedy. Available online: https://homeopathichousecall.com/resource/give-a-remedy (accessed on 24 July 2025).
Table 1.
Cases excluded from analysis because MYCaW complaints were not covered by automated remedy finder.
Table 1.
Cases excluded from analysis because MYCaW complaints were not covered by automated remedy finder.
| MYCaW Symptom 1
| MYCaW Symptom 2
|
---|
96 | Anxiety | Spiraling |
52 | Fatigue | Inconsolable night crying |
60 | Back pain | Impediment to movement |
4 | Pain in jaw on left after taking Causticum on own | Lower jaw misaligned |
136 | Stomach pain | Crummy feeling |
198 | Lost appetite | Mood |
5 | Rash | Constipation |
275 | Pulling | Cramping |
180 * | Appearance of rash | Itching |
117 | Lethargy | Whining and touchiness |
306 ** | Frequent urination | Bowel movements |
35 | Blister | Pain |
Table 2.
Comparison of AHE clinic practitioner remedy recommendations to the automated online remedy finder recommendations (n = 125 *).
Table 2.
Comparison of AHE clinic practitioner remedy recommendations to the automated online remedy finder recommendations (n = 125 *).
| Number of Cases Analyzed | % of Cases Overall | RX Match
| % of RX Matches in Complaint Category | Top 3 RX Matches | % of Top 3 RX Matches Overall | # 1 RX Matches | % of # 1 Matches Overall |
---|
Cough | 29 | 23.2% | 14 | 48.3% | 9 | 31.0% | 6 | 20.7% |
Common Cold | 21 | 16.8% | 12 | 57.1% | 6 | 28.6% | 3 | 14.3% |
Sore throat/hoarseness | 16 | 12.8% | 9 | 56.3% | 7 | 43.8% | 2 | 12.5% |
Influenza | 11 | 8.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
COVID-19 | 10 | 8.0% | 8 | 80.0% | 3 | 30.0% | 1 | 10.0% |
Headache | 6 | 4.8% | 3 | 50.0% | 3 | 50.0% | 1 | 16.7% |
Ear infection | 5 | 4.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 2 | 40.0% | 1 | 20.0% |
Conjunctivitis | 4 | 3.2% | 1 | 25.0% | 1 | 25.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
Nausea and vomiting | 3 | 2.4% | 1 | 33.3% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
Traumatic Injury | 3 | 2.4% | 2 | 66.7% | 1 | 33.3% | 0 | 0.0% |
Urinary tract infection | 3 | 2.4% | 1 | 33.3% | 1 | 33.3% | 1 | 33.3% |
Dental complications | 2 | 1.6% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
Dizziness | 2 | 1.6% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
Teething | 2 | 1.6% | 1 | 50.0% | 1 | 50.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
Allergic reaction | 1 | 0.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
Contact dermatitis | 1 | 0.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
Diarrhea | 1 | 0.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
Impetigo | 1 | 0.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
Insomnia | 1 | 0.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
Kidney stone | 1 | 0.8% | 1 | 100.0% | 1 | 100.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
Nausea of pregnancy | 1 | 0.8% | 1 | 100.0% | 1 | 100.0% | 1 | 100.0% |
Strains/Sprains | 1 | 0.8% | 1 | 100.0% | 1 | 100.0% | 1 | 100.0% |
TOTAL | 125 * | 100.0% | 59 | | 37 | | 17 | |
Table 3.
Number of AHE Clinic practitioner remedy recommendations that appeared in the top 3 list of recommended remedies in the online remedy finder (n = 37).
Table 3.
Number of AHE Clinic practitioner remedy recommendations that appeared in the top 3 list of recommended remedies in the online remedy finder (n = 37).
| Number | Percentage
|
---|
1st remedy match | 17 | 46% |
2nd remedy match | 7 | 19% |
3rd remedy match | 13 | 35% |
Table 4.
Presenting Complaints of cases in which there was a direct match between AHE clinic practitioner recommendation and a top remedy match using the online remedy finder (n = 17).
Table 4.
Presenting Complaints of cases in which there was a direct match between AHE clinic practitioner recommendation and a top remedy match using the online remedy finder (n = 17).
Complaint | Case # | # 1 RX | Total Online Remedy Finder Remedies Recommended |
---|
Cough | 32 | Phosphorus | 11 |
Cough | 48 | Drosera | 6 |
Cough | 222 | Pulsatilla | 3 |
Cough | 124 | Drosera | 10 |
Cough | 178 | Spongia | 7 |
Cough | 174 | Drosera | 12 |
Headache | 50 | Belladonna | 7 |
Common cold | 14 | Pulsatilla | 6 |
Common cold | 20 | Kali bichromium | 7 |
Common cold | 279 | Pulsatilla | 7 |
COVID-19 | 55 | Arsenicum | 16 |
Nausea of pregnancy | 139 | Sepia | 4 |
Sore throat/hoarseness | 241 | Lachesis | 5 |
Sore throat/hoarseness | 169 | Mercurius | 7 |
Urinary tract infection | 76 | Cantharis | 7 |
Ear infection | 93 | Belladonna | 8 |
Sprains/strains | 223 | Rhus toxicodendron | 4 |
| Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).