Argumentation about Treatment Efficacy

نویسندگان

  • Nikos Gorogiannis
  • Anthony Hunter
  • Vivek Patkar
  • Matthew Williams
چکیده

The volume and complexity of knowledge produced by medical research calls for the development of technology for automated management and analysis of such knowledge. In this paper, we identify scenarios where a researcher or a clinician may wish to use automated systems for analysing knowledge from clinical trials. For this, we propose a language for encoding, capturing and synthesising knowledge from clinical trials and a framework that allows the construction of arguments from such knowledge. We develop this framework and demonstrate its use on a case study regarding chemotherapy regimens for ovarian cancer.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Reasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks

This paper combines two recent extensions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks in order to define an abstract formalism for reasoning about preferences in structured argumentation frameworks. First, extended argumentation frameworks extend Dung frameworks with attacks on attacks, thus providing an abstract dialectical semantics that accommodates argumentation-based reasoning about prefer...

متن کامل

Default Reasoning about Actions via Abstract Argumentation

Reasoning about actions is a subfield of artificial intelligence that is concerned with representing and reasoning about dynamic domains. We propose to employ abstract argumentation for this purpose. Specifically, we present a translation of action domains from a specification language into Dung-style argumentation frameworks (AFs). As the key advantage of our approach, we use existing semantic...

متن کامل

Argumentation for Decision Support

In this paper we describe an application based on a general approach towards modelling practical reasoning through defeasible argumentation. The purpose of the paper is to show how the incorporation of an argumentation component can add value to a collection of existing information agents. The example application is a system for reasoning about the medical treatment of a patient. An agent, call...

متن کامل

Value Added: Processing Information with Argumentation

In this paper we describe an application based on a general approach towards modelling practical reasoning through defeasible argumentation. The purpose of the paper is to show how the incorporation of an argumentation component can add value to a collection of existing information agents. The example application is a system for reasoning about the treatment of a patient. An agent, called the D...

متن کامل

Exploiting Parallelism for Hard Problems in Abstract Argumentation: Technical Report

Abstract argumentation framework (AF ) is a unifying framework able to encompass a variety of nonmonotonic reasoning approaches, logic programming and computational argumentation. Yet, efficient approaches for most of the decision and enumeration problems associated to AF s are missing, thus potentially limiting the efficacy of argumentation-based approaches in real domains. In this paper, we p...

متن کامل

The Analysis and Evaluation of Legal Argumentation: Approaches and Developments

This contribution provides an overview of how argumentation theorists, philosophers, legal theorists and legal philosophers approach questions about the standards for the correctness of legal argumentation. Ideas about the analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation, developed by influential authors in the field, will be examined. The contribution starts with an overview of objectives and me...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2009