Argumentation-logic for creating and explaining medical hypotheses

Grando, M.A., Moss, L. , Sleeman, D. and Kinsella, J. (2013) Argumentation-logic for creating and explaining medical hypotheses. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 58(1), pp. 1-13. (doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2013.02.003)

Full text not currently available from Enlighten.


<p>Objective: While EIRA has proved to be successful in the detection of anomalous patient responses to treatments in the Intensive Care Unit, it could not describe to clinicians the rationales behind the anomalous detections. The aim of this paper is to address this problem.</p> <p>Methods: Few attempts have been made in the past to build knowledge-based medical systems that possess both argumentation and explanation capabilities. Here we propose an approach based on Dung's seminal calculus of opposition.</p> <p>Results: We have developed a new tool, arguEIRA, which is an extension of the existing EIRA system. In this paper we extend EIRA by providing it with an argumentation-based justification system that formalizes and communicates to the clinicians the reasons why a patient response is anomalous.</p> <p>Conclusion: Our comparative evaluation of the EIRA system against the newly developed tool highlights the multiple benefits that the use of argumentation-logic can bring to the field of medical decision support and explanation.</p>

Item Type:Articles
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Sleeman, Prof Derek and Kinsella, Professor John and Moss, Miss Laura
Authors: Grando, M.A., Moss, L., Sleeman, D., and Kinsella, J.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing
Journal Name:Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record