ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
From Engel's Bio-Psycho-Social model to the personalized health determinants model: a comprehensive framework and illustrative operationalization for precision health.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Engel's Bio-Psycho-Social (BPS) model (1977) reframed healthcare by integrating biological, psychological, and social perspectives. Despite its influence, the model has been criticized for insufficient specificity in domains critical to precision health, including nutrition, lifestyle, socioeconomic, environmental, and structural factors. To address these limitations, we propose the Personalized Health Determinants Model (PHDm), a comprehensive nine-dimension framework, Biological, Psychological, Social, Cultural, Environmental, Economic, Political, Spiritual, and Lifestyle, synthesized from Engel's BPS model, the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health, CDC frameworks, and related literature. Section 2.0 provides a detailed evidence-based rationale for the dimensions and their relationship to prior frameworks. The PHDm organizes each dimension hierarchically into categories, sub-categories, and measurable health elements (theoretical maximum -72,000), with only tailored, clinically relevant subsets applied in practice. Using obesity as a case study, we illustrate operationalization through a Bayesian Network and a complementary rule-based scoring system. Four exemplar factors, insulin sensitivity, dietary fiber, caloric intake, and activity frequency, are mapped into both models, enabling individualized obesity risk quantification and intervention simulation. Preliminary evaluation on NHANES data yielded -85% predictive accuracy for the Bayesian Network and -80% concordance for the rule-based system. This manuscript presents the PHDm as a conceptual framework with illustrative operationalization. While the Bayesian Network and rule-based approaches demonstrate promising preliminary performance on NHANES data, the current model, based on four simplified factors and binary thresholds, remains a proof-of-concept prototype and is not yet a clinically validated decision-support tool. Further development, external validation, and integration into electronic health records will be required before clinical deployment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.