2008 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 2008
DOI: 10.1109/iembs.2008.4650038
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A hierarchical, ontology-driven Bayesian concept for ubiquitous medical environments- A case study for pulmonary diseases

Abstract: The present paper extends work on an existing computer-based Decision Support System (DSS) that aims to provide assistance to physicians as regards to pulmonary diseases. The extension deals with allowing for a hierarchical decomposition of the task, at different levels of domain granularity, using a novel approach, i.e. Hierarchical Bayesian Networks. The proposed framework uses data from various networking appliances such as mobile phones and wireless medical sensors to establish a ubiquitous environment for… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The challenges to the development and validation of ontology-based models to assess and manage DQ include methodological immaturity, immature knowledge base, lack of tools to support ontology-based design of information systems, evaluation of ontological approaches, and engagement of users in design and implementations (Rahimi, Liaw, Ray, & Taggart, 2012;Rahimi, et al, 2014). There have also been several attempts to define ontology evaluation metrics and provide practical techniques to evaluate ontological approaches (in terms of flexibility, scalability and reusability) against non-ontology based models (Cur & #233, 2012;Maragoudakis, Lymberopoulos, Fakotakis, Spiropoulos, & Ieee, 2008). There is a lack of valid and reliable DQ assurance (D. Arts, De Keizer, & Scheffer, 2002;D.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The challenges to the development and validation of ontology-based models to assess and manage DQ include methodological immaturity, immature knowledge base, lack of tools to support ontology-based design of information systems, evaluation of ontological approaches, and engagement of users in design and implementations (Rahimi, Liaw, Ray, & Taggart, 2012;Rahimi, et al, 2014). There have also been several attempts to define ontology evaluation metrics and provide practical techniques to evaluate ontological approaches (in terms of flexibility, scalability and reusability) against non-ontology based models (Cur & #233, 2012;Maragoudakis, Lymberopoulos, Fakotakis, Spiropoulos, & Ieee, 2008). There is a lack of valid and reliable DQ assurance (D. Arts, De Keizer, & Scheffer, 2002;D.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Defined purpose Assessed of fitness for purpose using DQ Context Assessment (7 papers) (Jacquelinet et al 2003) To develop semantic data interoperability -Apply an ontological tool to develop semantic data interoperability through domain terminologies using quantitative analysis of the existing coding information system and a qualitative analysis checking completeness, consistency, ambiguity and implicitness of terms Failure, dialysis and transplant datasets from National information system in France -Represent DQ factors such as completeness of data, appropriated terms, structured thesaurus, and terminology standard -Authors state usefulness of ontology based approach to support the processing of texts, and extending a terminological basis for medical experts (Maragoudakis et al 2008 Gene expression data which involve the use of microarrays in UK -Guide the development and use of metrics to measure the complexity and cohesion of ontologies -Authors state that ontology helps to allow a practical division of the work between providers and consumers, in order to minimize the costs to all concerned 2012b; Spasic and Ananiadou 2005;Stvilia et al 2009;Valencia-Garcia et al 2008;Wang et al 2007). Table 9 illustrates various definitions to identify the most common criteria to assess validity of ontologies and data models.…”
Section: Ontology Functions Referencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the paper was not explicit about whether was a formal outcome-based comparison of ontological and non-ontological approaches was conducted. Maragoudakis et al (2008) developed an ontology with 5 domains for a clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) for management of Chronic Obstruction Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The ontology, based on hierarchical Bayesian networks, encoded a domain (COPD) and compared the predictive accuracy of this ontology-based hierarchical Bayesian network method with linear programming and artificial neural network methods (Maragoudakis et al 2008).…”
Section: %mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation