Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Reasoning Under Uncertainty in Medical Decision Making

  • John Fox
  • David Glasspool
  • Jonathan Bury
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2101)


Medical decision making frequently requires the effective management and communication of uncertainty and risk. However a tension exists between classical probability theory, which is precise and rigorous but which people find non-intuitive and difficult to use, and qualitative approaches which are ad hoc but can be more versatile and easily comprehensible. In this paper we review a range of approaches to uncertainty management, then describe a logical approach, argumentation, which subsumes qualitative as well as quantitative representations and has a clear formal semantics. The approach is illustrated and evaluated in five decision support applications.


Decision Support System Subjective Probability Aggregation Function Expect Utility Theory Argumentation Framework 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kahneman D., Slovic P. and Tversky A. (eds): Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Evans J. st B. and Over D.E.: Rationality and reasoning. Psychology press, London (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wright G. and Ayton P. (eds): Subjective Probability. Wiley, Chichester, UK (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gigerenzer G. and Todd P.M.: Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.: Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, Vol. 185, 27 (1974) pp. 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lindley DV.: Making Decisions (2nd Edition). Wiley, Chichester, UK (1985)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shanteau, J.: Psychological characteristics of expert decision makers. In, J Mumpower (ed) Expert judgement and expert systems. NATO ASI Series, volume F35 (1987)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carpenter R G, Garnder A, McWeeny P M. and Emery J L.: Multistage scoring system for identifying infants at risk of unexpected death. Archives of disease in childhood, 53(8), (1977) pp.600–612Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fox J. Barber DC. and Bardhan KD.: Alternatives to Bayes? A quantitative comparison with rule-based diagnosis. Methods of Information in Medicine, 10(4) (1980) pp.210–215Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fox, J. Myers CD., Greaves MF. and Pegram S.: Knowledge acquisition for expert systems: experience in leukaemia diagnosis. Methods of Information in Medicine, 24(1) (1985) pp.65–72Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Neil MJ. and Glowinski AJ.: Evaluating and validating very large knowledge-based systems. Medical Informatics, 15(3) (1990) pp.237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pradhan M.: The sensitivity of belief networks to imprecise probabilities: an experimental investigation. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 84(1-2) (1996) pp.365–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krause P. and Clark C.: Uncertainty and Subjective Probability in AI Systems In Wright G & Ayton P (Eds) Subjective Probability, Wiley J & Sons (1994) pp.501–527Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hunter, A. and Parsons, S. (Editors) Applications of uncertainty formalisms, Springer Verlag, LNAI 1455, (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cohen P.R.: Heuristic Reasoning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach. Pitman Advanced Publishing Program, Boston (1985)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fox J.: On the necessity of probability: Reasons to believe and grounds for doubt. In Wright G, Ayton, P, eds., Subjective Probability. John Wiley, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fox J, Krause P. and Ambler S.: Arguments, contradictions and practical reasoning. In Neumann B, ed. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on AI (ECAI92), Vienna, Austria (1992) pp.623–627Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Curley SP. and Benson PG.: Applying a cognitive perspective to probability construction. In G Wright & P Ayton (eds.), Subjective Probability. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester, England (1994) pp. 185–209Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fox J. and Das S K.: Safe and Sound: Artificial Intelligence in Hazardous Applications, American Association of Artificial Intelligence and MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tonnelier CAG., Fox J., Judson P., Krause P., Pappas N. and Patel M.: Representation of Chemical Structures in Knowledge-Based Systems. J. Chem. Inf. Sci. 37 (1997) pp.117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elvang-Goransson M, Krause P.J and Fox J.: Acceptability of Arguments as Logical Uncertainty. In: Clarke M, Kruse R and Moral S, eds. Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty. Proceedings of European Conference ECSQARU93. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 747. Springer-Verlag (1993) pp.85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glasspool DW. and Fox J.: Understanding probability words by constructing concrete mental models. In Hahn M, Stoness, SC, eds, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (1999) pp.185–190Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walton RT, Gierl C, Yudkin P, Mistry H, Vessey MP & Fox J.: Evaluation of computer support for prescribing (CAPSULE) using simulated cases. British Medical Journal 315 (1997) pp.791–795.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Emery J, Watson E, Rose P and Andermann, A. A systematic review of the literature exploring the role of primary care in genetic services. Fam. Prac. 16 (1999) pp.426–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coulson AS, Glasspool DW, Fox J and Emery J. Computerized Genetic Risk Assessment from Family Pedigrees. MD computing, in press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Emery J., Walton, R., Murphy, M., Austoker, J., Yudkin, P., Chapman, C., Coulson, A., Glasspool, D. and Fox, J.: Computer support for interpreting family histories of breast and ovarian cancer in primary care: comparative study with simulated cases. British Medical Journal, 321 (2000) pp.28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Claus E, Schildkraut J, Thompson WD and Risch, N. The genetic attributable risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer 1996; 77, pp. 2318–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taylor, P, Fox J and Todd-Pokropek, A “The development and evaluation of CADMIUM: a prototype system to assist in the interpretation of mammograms” Medical Image Analysis, 1999, 3(4), 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Fox
    • 1
  • David Glasspool
    • 1
  • Jonathan Bury
    • 1
  1. 1.Imperial Cancer Research Fund LabsLincoln’s Inn FieldsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations