She was particularly mindful of the poor. In cases of discrimination by hospital attendants, she "always impressed on them that however poor a woman might be, she and her child deserving of the same care and consideration shown the well-to-do" for many a poor mother had, according to her, "given birth to boys who turned out to be great men, and who knows but those infants born of destitute mothers may some day become the saviors of the nation?" The baby was, as a matter of fact, just as important to her as the mother. In the thirties, she once told the attendant and nurses that "the new-born bebe . . . must be cared for and given the best of attention just as much as the mother." Her researches on the nutrition of both mother and child attest to this primary preoccupation with their welfare.

She was also a physician who continued and was always willing to learn. She was the first to employ the low cesarean section in the Philippines. And when a Japanese appeared to have improved it, she was not averse to learning the new technique. She was pre-occupied with improving the technique of podalic version, so essential to affecting a normal childbirth in cases where the fetus does not present itself with the head first. All her other researches revolved around making pregnancy, childbirth and infancy much safer, whether they involved the head measurements, the newly-born and pelvic sizes of mothers or more recondite diseases attendant to motherhood like eclampsia or choriocarcinoma.

To facilitate the job of healing, she took care to inform her patients and would-be patients. She wrote numerous articles for the general public, from "Puberty" to "Some Facts a Filipino Wife or Prospective Mother Should Know" through "Sex Education" and "Prenatal Care." Her advice always had a ring of sympathy, even as its authority was unmistakable, since it came from "one whose knowledge and acquaintance with the problems of both the maiden and the mother [was] comprehensive and longstanding." One could say just as much about her teaching at the U.P. College of Medicine. That she was "simple and lucid in her expositions" must have gone without saying, for her writing style attest fully to that, in the same manner that her knowledge of her subject matter must have been a source of inspiration to serious students. Her son, who most probably also became her student, says that "she activated her students to study and learn and tried to inculcate into the students’ minds the virtue of self-sufficiency." Self-sufficiency and the almost insatiable thirst for knowledge were all too evident traits of her personality. All the awards and testimonials about her as a great teacher could not therefore have been made as a vain exercise in flattery, to which the object was in any case immune at the very outset. There is no reason to doubt that she had "given inspiration to younger minds . . . fired the imagination of those vocationally inclined to practice medicine."

As teacher and physician, she might indeed have been in the first place. She was much greater as a scientist, even if she had not set out to be one. All her career as a scientist was based on a sincere desire to heal, to ease the sufferings of others. How was she as a scientist?

In her short biography of Dr. Acosta-Sison, Dra. Gloria T. Aragon emphasized in 1952 her original work on the formation of the lower uterine segment, the origin of the amniotic fluid, the pathology of eclampsia, and the early clinical diagnosis of hydatidiform mole, particularly because her results had invention of the sagittal pelvimeter and a single-bladed forceps "to facilitate delivery of the fetal head in laparitrachelotomy" or low cesarian section was also considered important, together with her studies on pelvimetry and cephalometry among Filipinos.

In 1968, Dr. Antonio S. Fernando seemed to have been particularly impressed by her having performed the first low cesarian, which brought about the abandonment of the classical technique in the Philippines. Her pelvi, cephalometric researches were just as interesting as her first article on clinical chorioepithelioma in 1937 and the fact that from 1910 to 1953, Dra. Acosta-Sison’s contributions to learned journals on obstetrics and gynecology represented 24% (actually 31½%) of the total.

Finally, in his memorial address, Dr. Jose R. Villanueva called her the "Mother of Philippine Obstetrics." To him, she was important for having "established normal pelvimetry among Filipino women and cephalometry among Filipino newborns," the internal diameters having been determined " by direct measurements in the female cadaver; for her contribution on the origin of the lower uterine segment, as noted by Ricci in his book Extraperitoneal Cesarean Section; for having clarified the origin of the amniotic fluid; for having introduced laparotrachelotomy and simplified the technique of internal podalic version; and for her work on eclampsia and choriocarchinoma, as well as on the nutrition of both mother and child, particularly the correlation she presented between low protein intake and high incidence of hydatidiform mole and chorionic malignancy in Asia and the Philippines. Dr. Villanueva concluded that "Dr. Acosta-Sison will be remembered by the scientific world for her works on choriocarchinoma." He thus joined the judgement of Greenhill that she was the greatest authority in the world on that disease.

Whatever the final worth of her contribution to medical science, they were made out of a deep compassion for the suffering of women. They proceeded from an awareness of actual problems, of a real need to alleviate pain, to help real people. They were the response of a human being in the face of actual human suffering.