Personalized Medicine (PM) is an evolving and often missinterpreted concept and no agreement of personalization exist. We examined the PM discourse towards foucauldian archeological and genealogical analysis to understand the meaning of “personalization” in medicine. In the archaeological analysis, the historical evolution is characterized by the coexistence of two epistemologies: the holistic vision and the omic sciences. The genealogical analysis shows how these epistemologies may affect the meaning of “person” and, consequently, the ontology of patients. Additionally, substitutions/confusions of the term PM are related to continuously evolving medical knowledge and new technologies; different etymological roots of “personalization” and “person”; and cultural differences. In conclusion, if the definition of “personalization” in medicine is not clear, patients might get wrong expectations about what is achievable for their health. Therefore, epistemological trends should not be separated as they drive same goals: providing accurate diagnosis and treatments based on large data to predict disease progression.

个性化医学 (PM) 是一个不断发展且经常被误解的概念，并且不存在个性化协议。我们研究了 PM 对福柯考古学和谱系分析的论述，以了解医学中“个性化”的含义。在考古学分析中，历史演变的特点是两种认识论并存：整体观和组学科学。谱系分析显示了这些认识论如何影响“人”的含义，从而影响患者的本体论。此外，术语 PM 的替代/混淆与不断发展的医学知识和新技术有关；“个性化”和“人”的不同词源；和文化差异。综上所述，如果医学中“个性化”的定义不明确，患者可能会对其健康可实现的目标产生错误的期望。因此，认识论趋势不应分开，因为它们驱动着相同的目标：基于大数据提供准确的诊断和治疗以预测疾病进展。