Home // HEALTHINFO 2019, The Fourth International Conference on Informatics and Assistive Technologies for Health-Care, Medical Support and Wellbeing // View article
Authors:
Olivia Sanchez-Graillet
Philipp Cimiano
Keywords: Argumentation in Medicine; Argumentation Schemes; Evidence-based Medicine; Summarization of Clinical Evidence
Abstract:
The paradigm of evidence-based medicine requires that medical decisions are taken based on available, verified and high quality evidence. Such evidence has to be obtained from multiple relevant studies, considering their potential biases and shortcomings. Rationalizing and aggregating evidence from multiple studies is key to evidence-based decision making. Towards a system that is able to aggregate and summarize the evidence available in multiple studies, we have defined two argument schemes, which respectively provide reasons as to why a certain therapy may be regarded superior to another in terms of efficacy and safety. The argument schemes can be automatically instantiated via the semantic query language SPARQL from a knowledge base in which clinical studies have been formalized according to our own clinical trial ontology. The argument schemes are meant to be part of the framework of a configurable system that generates clinical recommendations by aggregating and summarizing the evidence from different clinical studies. We demonstrate the instantiation of the argument schemes in a study case on glaucoma and show that they are able to capture the reasoning behind determining such intervention superiority.
Pages: 1 to 4
Copyright: Copyright (c) IARIA, 2019
Publication date: November 24, 2019
Published in: conference
ISSN: 2519-8491
ISBN: 978-1-61208-759-7
Location: Valencia, Spain
Dates: from November 24, 2019 to November 28, 2019