A postulate-based analysis of comparative preference statements

Kaci, Souhila; Patel, Namrata

doi:10.1016/j.jal.2014.07.004

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other orderings could be applied, see e.g. [53] for a comparison of various orderings, but we chose the above in accordance with our interpretation of priorities over goals.…”

Section: Aba + G: Aba + With Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assumption-based argumentation with preferences and goals for patient-centric reasoning with interacting clinical guidelines

Čyras

Oliveira

Karamlou

et al. 2021

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A paramount, yet unresolved issue in personalised medicine is that of automated reasoning with clinical guidelines in multimorbidity settings. This entails enabling machines to use computerised generic clinical guideline recommendations and patient-specific information to yield patient-tailored recommendations where interactions arising due to multimorbidities are resolved. This problem is further complicated by patient management desiderata, in particular the need to account for patient-centric goals as well as preferences of various parties involved. We propose to solve this problem of automated reasoning with interacting guideline recommendations in the context of a given patient by means of computational argumentation. In particular, we advance a structured argumentation formalism ABA+G (short for Assumption-Based Argumentation with Preferences (ABA+) and Goals) for integrating and reasoning with information about recommendations, interactions, patient’s state, preferences and prioritised goals. ABA+G combines assumption-based reasoning with preferences and goal-driven selection among reasoning outcomes. Specifically, we assume defeasible applicability of guideline recommendations with the general goal of patient well-being, resolve interactions (conflicts and otherwise undesirable situations) among recommendations based on the state and preferences of the patient, and employ patient-centered goals to suggest interaction-resolving, goal-importance maximising and preference-adhering recommendations. We use a well-established Transition-based Medical Recommendation model for representing guideline recommendations and identifying interactions thereof, and map the components in question, together with the given patient’s state, prioritised goals, and preferences over actions, to ABA+G for automated reasoning. In this, we follow principles of patient management and establish corresponding theoretical properties as well as illustrate our approach in realistic personalised clinical reasoning scenaria.

show abstract

“…Other orderings could be applied, see e.g. [53] for a comparison of various orderings, but we chose the above in accordance with our interpretation of priorities over goals.…”

Section: Aba + G: Aba + With Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assumption-based argumentation with preferences and goals for patient-centric reasoning with interacting clinical guidelines

Čyras

Oliveira

Karamlou

et al. 2021

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other orderings could be applied, see e.g. [16] for a comparison of various orderings, but we chose the above one in accordance to our interpretation of priorities over goals.…”

Section: Aba + G: Aba + With Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resolving Conflicts in Clinical Guidelines using Argumentation

Čyras,

Oliveira

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automatically reasoning with conflicting generic clinical guidelines is a burning issue in patient-centric medical reasoning where patient-specific conditions and goals need to be taken into account. It is even more challenging in the presence of preferences such as patient's wishes and clinician's priorities over goals. We advance a structured argumentation formalism for reasoning with conflicting clinical guidelines, patient-specific information and preferences. Our formalism integrates assumption-based reasoning and goal-driven selection among reasoning outcomes. Specifically, we assume applicability of guideline recommendations concerning the generic goal of patient well-being, resolve conflicts among recommendations using patient's conditions and preferences, and then consider prioritised patient-centered goals to yield non-conflicting, goal-maximising and preference-respecting recommendations. We rely on the state-of-the-art Transition-based Medical Recommendation model for representing guideline recommendations and augment it with context given by the patient's conditions, goals, as well as preferences over recommendations and goals. We establish desirable properties of our approach in terms of sensitivity to recommendation conflicts and patient context.

show abstract

A postulate-based analysis of comparative preference statements

Cited by 2 publications

References 20 publications

Assumption-based argumentation with preferences and goals for patient-centric reasoning with interacting clinical guidelines

Assumption-based argumentation with preferences and goals for patient-centric reasoning with interacting clinical guidelines

Resolving Conflicts in Clinical Guidelines using Argumentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About