Advertisement

Declarative Programming and Clinical Medicine On the Use of Gisela in the MedView Project

  • Olof Torgersson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2257)

Abstract

In 1995, the MedView project, based on a co-operation between computing science and clinical medicine was initiated. The overall aim of the project is to develop models, methods, and tools to support clinicians in their diagnostic work. Today, the system is in daily use at several clinics and the knowledge base created contains more than 2000 examination records from the involved clinics. Knowledge representation and reasoning within MedView uses a declarative model based on a theory of definitions. In order to be able to model knowledge declaratively and integrate reasoning into applications with GUIs a framework for definitional programming has been developed. We give an overview of the project and of how declarative programming techniques are integrated with industrial strength object-oriented programming tools to facilitate the development of real-world applications.

Keywords

Definitional programming Clinical Medicine Integration with GUIs Objective-C 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Y. Ali, G. Falkman, L. Hallnäs, M. Jontell, N. Nazari, and O. Torgersson. Medview: Design and adoption of an interactive system for oral medicine. In A. Hasman, B. Blobel, J. Dudeck, R. Engelbrecht, G. Gell, and H.-U. Prokosch, editors, Medical Infobahn for Europe: Proceedings of MIE2000 and GMDS2000. IOS Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Aronsson. Methodology and programming techniques in GCLA II. In Extensions of logic programming, second international workshop, ELP’91, number 596 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Aronsson, L.-H. Eriksson, A. Gäredal, L. Hallnäs, and P. Olin. The programming language GCLA: A definitional approach to logic programming. New Generation Computing, 7(4):381–404, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Carlsson and T. Hallgren. Fudgets: A graphical user interface in a lazy functional language. In FPCA’ 93-Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, pages 321–330. ACM Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Denti, A. Omicini, and A. Ricci. tuProlog: a light-weight prolog for internet applications and infrastructures. In Proc. of the Third International Workshop on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages (PADL’01), volume 1990 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 184–198. Springer-Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Falkman. Program separation and definitional higher order programming. Computer Languages, 23(2–4):179–206, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Falkman. Similarity measures for structured representations: a definitional approach. In E. Blanzieri and L. Portinale, editors, EWCBR-2K, Advances in Case-Based Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 380–392. Springer-Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Falkman. Information visualization in clinical odontology: multidimensional analysis and interactive data exploration. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 22(2):133–158, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. Hallnäs. Partial inductive definitions. Theoretical Computer Science, 87(1):115–142, 1991.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Hanus. A functional logic programming approach to graphical user interfaces. In Proc. of the Second International Workshop on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages (PADL’00), volume 1753 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 47–62. Springer-Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Hanus, H. Kuchen, and J. Moreno-Navarro. Curry: A truly functional logic language. In Proc. ILPS’95 Workshop on Visions for the Future of Logic Programming, pages 95–107, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Kreuger. GCLA II: A definitional approach to control. In Extensions of logic programming, second international workshop, ELP91, number 596 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Z. Somogyi, F. Henderson, and T. Conway. The execution algorithm of Mercury: an efficient purely declarative logic programming language. Journal of Logic Programming, 29(1–3):17–64, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O. Torgersson. A definitional approach to functional logic programming. In R. Dyckhoff, H. Herre, and P. Schroeder-Heister, editors, Extensions of Logic Programming 5th International Workshop, ELP’96, number 1050 in Lecture Notes in Arti ficial Intelligence, pages 273–287. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    O. Torgersson. On GCLA, Gisela, and MedView: Studies in Declarative Programming with Application to Clinical Medicine. PhD thesis, Department of Computing Science, Chalmers University of Technology and Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olof Torgersson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceChalmers University of Technology and Göteborg UniversityGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations