五疸中惟劳疸、女劳疸多相混，故或去劳疸，入黑疸，以足五疸之数。但劳疸之名旧矣
，《
病源》名劳疸为劳黄，与十种黄并列。其女劳疸则次黄胆、谷疸、酒疸、黑疸之中，是劳疸
属黄，女劳疸属疸，所属不同。《外台》引《集验》、《删繁》皆有疗劳疸之方，用苦参、
龙胆草、栀子三味，以牛胆或猪胆和丸，而与谷疸并列，是劳疸疗与谷疸同，而《近效》云
女劳疸疗与黑疸同，是治法亦不同。二疸为证相似，所异者，劳疸微汗出，手足间热，小便
利，而女劳疸无之；女劳疸发热恶寒，足下热，而劳疸无之。且诊其少腹，但急不满者劳疸
，急而满者女劳疸，此其要诀。自《金匮》劳疸条衍“女”字，而后世遂不知此义矣。详余
所撰《金匮方论注》中。
古今诸家言消渴者不一，要当以《金匮》为正。《金匮》首列厥阴病一条，是渴而不消
；次
列脾约症一条，是消而不渴；次列肾气症一条，是消渴并作。其旨以饮、溲相较，而分为三
，最为简当，犹霍乱之分但吐、但泻、吐泻并作为三也。其言饮一溲一者，乃较其出入之多
寡以出诊法也。推详其意，似有可以饮多溲少、饮少溲多、饮溲相当为三者，亦即就前三者
而引申之也。其兼及能食、便难者，乃旁参他症以为出治地也，并非三消必定如是。后人误
会其旨，所以说歧而义转未备。泉尝即《金匮》以推诸家之言知所谓能饮不能饮，及溲如麸
片、如油，及溲数不数者，皆当作诊法观，不必致辨。总之，但渴者，
有燥、湿两种，五苓、白虎是也；但消者，有虚、实两种，脾约、
肾沥是也。消渴并作者，有寒、热两种，黄连、肾气是也。其方备见唐人书中，但不以兼证
测之，不确也，故诸家云云。
在五种黄疸病中，只有劳疸和女劳疸最容易混淆，因此有时去掉劳疸，加入黑疸，以凑足五疸的数量。但是“劳疸”这个名称由来已久，《诸病源候论》将劳疸称为“劳黄”，与十种黄病并列。而女劳疸则排在黄胆、谷疸、酒疸、黑疸之后，这说明劳疸属于“黄”的范畴，女劳疸属于“疸”的范畴，二者所属类别不同。《外台秘要》引用《集验方》和《删繁方》，都有治疗劳疸的方子，使用苦参、龙胆草、栀子这三味药，用牛胆或猪胆汁和丸，并且将其与谷疸并列，说明劳疸的治疗方法同谷疸相同；而《近效方》说女劳疸的治疗方法同黑疸相同，说明二者的治法也是不同的。这两种疸证症状相似，其区别在于：劳疸有微汗出、手足心发热、小便通利的症状，而女劳疸没有这些症状；女劳疸有发热恶寒、脚底发热的症状，而劳疸没有这些症状。并且诊察其少腹部，如果仅觉拘急而不胀满的是劳疸，拘急且胀满的是女劳疸，这是诊断的关键要点。自从《金匮要略》在劳疸条文中衍生了“女”字之后，后世的人就不明白这其中的含义了。详细情况请参阅我撰写的《金匮方论注》。
古今各家对消渴病的论述各不相同，但应当以《金匮要略》为准。《金匮要略》首先列出厥阴病一条，表现为口渴但不消瘦；其次列出脾约症一条，表现为消瘦但不口渴；再次列出肾气虚一条，表现为既口渴又消瘦。其主旨是通过比较饮水量和小便量的多少来分为三类，最为简明恰当，就像霍乱病分为只呕吐、只腹泻、吐泻并作为三种类型一样。书中所说的“饮水一斗，小便也一斗”，是比较其出入量的多少以作为诊断方法。推究其深意，似乎可以将饮水多而小便少、饮水少而小便多、饮水与小便利相当分为三类，这也是就前三类而引申出来的。其中兼及能进食、大便困难的情况，是参考其他症状以确定治疗方向，并非三消症必定如此。后人误解了其主旨，所以说法分歧，义理也不完备。我曾根据《金匮要略》推究各家的言论，知道所谓能喝不能喝，以及小便像麸片、像油，以及小便次数多不多的情况，都应当作为诊断方法来看待，不必过分争辩。总之，只是口渴的，有燥、湿两种类型，分别用五苓散、白虎汤治疗；只是消瘦的，有虚、实两种类型，分别用脾约丸、肾沥汤治疗；口渴与消瘦并发的，有寒、热两种类型，分别用黄连阿胶汤、肾气丸治疗。这些方剂详见唐代医书中，如果不结合兼夹症状来推测，就不准确，所以各家说法纷纭。
Among the five types of jaundice (Huangdan), only Lao Dan (Jaundice due to overwork) and Nü Lao Dan (Female Jaundice due to sexual excess) are often confused. Therefore, sometimes Lao Dan is omitted and Hei Dan (Black Jaundice) is added to complete the count of five. However, the name "Lao Dan" is ancient. *Zhubing Yuanhou Lun* (Treatise on the Pathogenesis and Symptoms of All Diseases) refers to Lao Dan as "Lao Huang" (Yellow due to overwork), listing it alongside ten types of yellow diseases. In contrast, Nü Lao Dan appears after Huang Dan (Jaundice due to damp-heat), Gu Dan (Grain Jaundice), Jiu Dan (Wine Jaundice), and Hei Dan, indicating that Lao Dan belongs to the category of "Huang" (Yellow), while Nü Lao Dan belongs to the category of "Dan" (Jaundice); their classifications differ. *Waitai Miyao* (Essential Prescriptions Worth a Thousand Gold for Emergencies) cites *Jiyan Fang* and *Shanfan Fang*, both containing prescriptions for treating Lao Dan using Sanmen (Radix Sophorae Flavescentis), Longdancao (Radix Gentianae), and Zhizi (Fructus Gardeniae), formed into pills with ox or pig bile. These are listed alongside Gu Dan, implying that the treatment for Lao Dan is the same as for Gu Dan. Conversely, *Jin Xiao Fang* states that the treatment for Nü Lao Dan is the same as for Hei Dan, implying that their therapeutic methods differ. The presentations of these two conditions are similar; the distinction lies in the fact that Lao Dan presents with slight sweating, heat in the hands and feet, and free urination, which Nü Lao Dan lacks. Nü Lao Dan presents with fever, aversion to cold, and heat in the soles of the feet, which Lao Dan lacks. Furthermore, upon palpating the lower abdomen, if there is tension without fullness, it is Lao Dan; if there is tension with fullness, it is Nü Lao Dan. This is the key diagnostic point. Since the character "Nü" (Female) was appended to the Lao Dan clause in *Jinkui Yaolue* (Essential Prescriptions from the Golden Cabinet), later generations have failed to understand this meaning. For details, please refer to my commentary *Jinkui Fanglun Zhu*.
Various scholars throughout history have offered different explanations for Xiaoke (Wasting-Thirst). However, *Jinkui Yaolue* should be regarded as the standard. *Jinkui Yaolue* first lists a clause on Jueyin Disease, characterized by thirst without wasting; next, it lists a clause on Pi Yue (Splee Confinement), characterized by wasting without thirst; and then, it lists a clause on Shen Qi (Kidney Qi) deficiency, characterized by both thirst and wasting. Its main principle is to divide the condition into three categories based on the comparison between fluid intake and urine output, which is concise and appropriate, similar to how Huoluan (Cholera-like disorder) is divided into vomiting only, diarrhea only, and simultaneous vomiting and diarrhea. The statement "one dou of water intake results in one dou of urine output" compares the volume of input and output as a diagnostic method. Inferring its deeper meaning, it seems possible to categorize cases into those with high intake and low output, low intake and high output, and equal intake and output, which is an extension of the previous three categories. The mention of ability to eat and difficulty in defecation serves to reference other symptoms to guide treatment, rather than being definitive characteristics of all three types of Xiaoke. Later generations misunderstood this principle, leading to divergent interpretations and incomplete theories. I once analyzed the statements of various schools based on *Jinkui Yaolue* and concluded that descriptions such as the ability or inability to drink, urine resembling bran or oil, and frequency of urination should all be viewed as diagnostic indicators, not subjects of excessive debate. In summary, cases presenting only with thirst fall into dryness and dampness types, treated with Wuling San (Poria Pill) and Baihu Tang (White Tiger Decoction), respectively. Cases presenting only with wasting fall into deficiency and excess types, treated with Pi Yue Wan (Splee Confinement Pill) and Shen Li Tang (Kidney Drip Decoction), respectively. Cases presenting with both thirst and wasting fall into cold and heat types, treated with Huanglian Ejiao Tang (Coptis and Donkey-Hide Gelatin Decoction) and Shenqi Wan (Kidney Qi Pill), respectively. These formulas are detailed in Tang dynasty texts. Without considering accompanying symptoms, the analysis is inaccurate, hence the plethora of differing opinions among scholars.