Modeling and reasoning with qualitative comparative clinical knowledge

Abstract

The number of clinical trials reports is increasing rapidly due to a large number of clinical trials being conducted, it therefore raises an urgent need to utilize the clinical knowledge contained in the clinical trials reports. In this paper, we focus on the qualitative knowledge instead of quantitative knowledge. More precisely, we aim to model and reason with the qualitative comparison (QC for short) relations which consider qualitatively how strongly one drug/therapy is preferred to another in a clinical point of view. To this end, first, we formalize the QC relations, introduce the notions of QC language, QC base, and QC profile; second, we propose a set of induction rules for the QC relations, and provide grading interpretations for the QC bases and show how to determine whether a QC base is consistent. Furthermore, when a QC base is inconsistent, we analyze how to measure inconsistencies among QC bases, and we propose different approaches to merging multiple QC bases. Finally, a case study on lowering intraocular pressure is conducted to illustrate our approaches.

A postulate-based analysis of comparative preference statements

“…In situations where we might wish to consider additional factors to define our preferences, e.g., university ranking along with location in the task of choosing a university for further studies, there can be (1) general preferences of the form "I like a university in London more than one in Paris" and (2) specific preferences in a particular context such as "If a university in Paris is ranked higher than one in London, then I prefer the university in Paris to the one in London." For an example of a real-world application where such preferences are used we refer the reader to [14].…”