Argumentation-Logic for Explaining Anomalous Patient Responses to Treatments
نویسندگان
چکیده
The EIRA system has proved to be successful in the detection of anomalous patient responses to treatments in the Intensive Care Unit. One weakness of EIRA is the lack of mechanisms to explain to the clinicians, rationalities behind the anomalous detections. In this paper, we extend EIRA by providing it with an argumentationbased justification system that formalizes and communicates to the clinicians the reasons why a patient response is anomalous. The proposed justification system uses human-like argumentation techniques and is based on real deliberation dialogues between ICU clinicians.
منابع مشابه
Ontology-Driven Hypothesis Generation to Explain Anomalous Patient Responses to Treatment
Within the medical domain there are clear expectations as to how a patient should respond to treatments administered. When these responses are not observed it can be challenging for clinicians to understand the anomalous responses. The work reported here describes a tool which can detect anomalous patient responses to treatment and further suggest hypotheses to explain the anomaly. In order to ...
متن کاملExplaining Answer Set Programming in Argumentative Terms
Argumentation Theory and Answer Set Programming (ASP) are two prominent theories in the field of knowledge representation and non-monotonic reasoning, where Argumentation Theory stands for a variety of approaches following similar ideas. The main difference between Argumentation Theory and ASP is that the former focusses on representing knowledge and reasoning about it in a way that resembles h...
متن کاملExplaining the Level of Human Thought in the Parallel Civilizations Based on Formal Structure and Visual Imagination Formed in Mythical Narratives
Myth, like any other form of narrative, has an undeniable role in visual imagination based on the foundations of mythical thought. Ernst Cassirer, by recovering the fundamental principles of mythical thought, brings against them to the foundations of contemporary rational thought and defines the fundamental features of mythical thought as compared to modern rational thought. He also believes t...
متن کاملLNAI 4049 - A Logic of Abstract Argumentation
In this paper we introduce a logic of abstract argumentation capturing Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation, based on connectives for attack and defend. We extend it to a modal logic of abstract argumentation to generalize Dung’s theory and define variants of it. Moreover, we use the logic to relate Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation to more traditional conditional and comparative forma...
متن کاملFrom Logic Programming to Argumentation and Back
Argumentation has gained popularity in recent years as a knowledge representation formalism to support, in particular, non-monotonic and paraconsistent reasoning. I will trace back the origins of two well-known argumentation frameworks (namely abstact argumentation and assumption-based argumentation) to work on the semantics of logic programming and abductive logic programming in the late eight...
متن کامل