The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.06 - November/December (2007 vol.22)
pp: 34-41
John Fox , Oxford University
David Glasspool , Edinburgh University
Dan Grecu , Cancer Research UK
Sanjay Modgil , Oxford University
Matthew South , Cancer Research UK
Vivek Patkar , Royal Free Hospital London
ABSTRACT
A body of work centered on applications of argumentation in biomedicine, such as risk assessment and treatment planning, has led to a comprehensive view of argumentation as a form of evidential reasoning. This, in turn, has stimulated the development of a general formalization of argumentation for reasoning and decision making, which has served as the foundation for several tools for modeling and supporting medical decision making and workflow management. Later approaches have combined argumentation with adversarial models and nonmonotonic logic. The diversity of approaches to argumentation have led to the EU-funded Argumentation Services Platform with Integrated Components (ASPIC) project, which aims to develop a theoretical consensus on argumentation and to translate this consensus into practical standards and tools. This article is part of a special issue on argumentation technology.
INDEX TERMS
health care, knowledge modeling, knowledge management, artificial intelligence
CITATION
John Fox, David Glasspool, Dan Grecu, Sanjay Modgil, Matthew South, Vivek Patkar, "Argumentation-Based Inference and Decision Making--A Medical Perspective", IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol.22, no. 6, pp. 34-41, November/December 2007, doi:10.1109/MIS.2007.102
REFERENCES
1. J.M. Keynes, The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol. 4, The General Theory and After: Part II, Macmillan, 1973.
2. J. Fox, P.J. Krause, and M. Elvang-Goransson, "Argumentation as a General Framework for Uncertain Reasoning," Proc. Int'l Conf. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufman, 1993, pp. 428–434.
3. P.J. Krause, S. Ambler, and J. Fox, "A Logic of Argumentation for Uncertain Reasoning," Computational Intelligence, vol. 11, no. 1, 1995, pp. 113–131.
4. S. Das et al., "A Flexible Architecture for a General Intelligent Agent," J. Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, vol. 9, no. 4, 1997, pp. 407–440.
5. V. Patkar et al., "Evidence-Based Guidelines and Decision Support Services: A Discussion and Evaluation in Triple Assessment of Suspected Breast Cancer," British J. Cancer, vol. 95, no. 11, 2006, pp. 1490–1496.
6. P. Krause, J. Fox, and P. Judson, "Is There a Role for Qualitative Risk Assessment?" Proc. 11th Conf. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, 1995, pp. 386–439.
7. A.S. Coulson et al., "RAGs: A Novel Approach to Computerized Genetic Risk Assessment and Decision Support from Pedigrees," Methods of Information in Medicine, vol. 40, no. 4, 2001, pp. 315–322.
8. D.W. Glasspool et al., "Interactive Decision Support for Medical Planning," Proc. 9th Conf. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine in Europe (AIME 03), M. Dojat, E. Keravnou, and P. Barahona, eds., Springer, 2003, pp. 335–339.
9. P.M. Dung, "On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games," Artificial Intelligence, vol. 77, no. 2, 1995, pp. 321–357.
10. C. Chesnevar et al., "Towards an Argument Interchange Format," Knowledge Eng. Rev., vol. 21, no. 4, 2007, pp. 293–316.
11. M. Caminada and L. Amgoud, "On the Evaluation of Argumentation Formalisms," Artificial Intelligence, vol. 171, nos. 5–6, 2007, pp. 286–310.
8 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool