Advertisement

Preliminary Result on Finding Treatments for Patients with Comorbidity

  • Yuanlin ZhangEmail author
  • Zhizheng Zhang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8903)

Abstract

According to some research, comorbidity is reported in 35 to 80 % of all ill people [1]. Multiple guidelines are needed for patients with comorbid diseases. However, it is still a challenging problem to automate the application of multiple guidelines to patients because of redundancy, contraindicated, potentially discordant recommendations. In this paper, we propose a mathematical model for the problem. It formalizes and generalizes a recent approach proposed by Wilk and colleagues. We also demonstrate that our model can be encoded, in a straightforward and simple manner, in Answer Set Programming (ASP) – a class of Knowledge Representation languages. Our preliminary experiment also shows our ASP based implementation is efficient enough to process the examples used in the literature.

Keywords

Answer set programming Clinical practice guidelines Knowledge representation Comorbidity 

Notes

Acknowlegment

We would like to thank Michael Gelfond and Samson Tu for discussions on this subject. Yuanlin Zhang’s work is partially supported by the NSF grants IIS-1018031 and CNS-1359359. Zhizheng Zhang’s work is partially supported by Project 60803061 and 61272378 sponsored by National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Project BK2008293 by Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu.

References

  1. 1.
    Jakovljević, M., Ostojić, L.: Comorbidity and multimorbidity in medicine today: challenges and opportunities for bringing separated branches of medicine closer to each other. Psychiatr. Danub. 1, 18–28 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Field, M.J., Lohr, K.N., et al.: Guidelines for Clinical Practice: From Development to Use. National Academies Press, Washington (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peleg, M., Tu, S., Bury, J., Ciccarese, P., Fox, J., Greenes, R.A., Hall, R., Johnson, P.D., Jones, N., Kumar, A., et al.: Comparing computer-interpretable guideline models: a case-study approach. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 10(1), 52–68 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Clercq, P.A., Blom, J.A., Korsten, H.H., Hasman, A.: Approaches for creating computer-interpretable guidelines that facilitate decision support. Artif. Intell. Med. 31(1), 1–27 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Isern, D., Moreno, A.: Computer-based execution of clinical guidelines: a review. Int. J. Med. Inf. 77(12), 787–808 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boyd, C.M., Darer, J., Boult, C., Fried, L.P., Boult, L., Wu, A.W.: Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 294(6), 716–724 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sittig, D.F., Wright, A., Osheroff, J.A., Middleton, B., Teich, J.M., Ash, J.S., Campbell, E., Bates, D.W.: Grand challenges in clinical decision support. J. Biomed. Inf. 41(2), 387–392 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Real, F., Riaño, D.: An autonomous algorithm for generating and merging clinical algorithms. In: Riaño, D. (ed.) K4HelP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5626, pp. 13–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abidi, S.R., Abidi, S.S.R.: Towards the merging of multiple clinical protocols and guidelines via ontology-driven modeling. In: Combi, C., Shahar, Y., Abu-Hanna, A. (eds.) AIME 2009. LNCS, vol. 5651, pp. 81–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilk, S., Michalowski, W., Michalowski, M., Farion, K., Hing, M.M., Mohapatra, S., et al.: Mitigation of adverse interactions in pairs of clinical practice guidelines using constraint logic programming. J. Biomed. Inf. 46(2), 341–353 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Michalowski, M., Mainegra Hing, M., Wilk, S., Michalowski, W., Farion, K.: A constraint logic programming approach to identifying inconsistencies in clinical practice guidelines for patients with comorbidity. In: Peleg, M., Lavrač, N., Combi, C. (eds.) AIME 2011. LNCS, vol. 6747, pp. 296–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilk, S., Michalowski, M., Michalowski, W., Hing, M.M., Farion, K.: Reconciling pairs of concurrently used clinical practice guidelines using constraint logic programming. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings. American Medical Informatics Association, vol. 2011, p. 944 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCarthy, J.: Elaboration tolerance. In: Common Sense, vol. 98, Citeseer (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gelfond, M., Kahl, Y.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and the Design of Intelligent Agents. Manuscript (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faber, W., Pfeifer, G., Leone, N., Dell’armi, T., Ielpa, G.: Design and implementation of aggregate functions in the dlv system. Theory. Pract. Log. Program. 8(5–6), 545–580 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: Conflict-driven answer set solving: from theory to practice. Artif. Intell. 187–188, 52–89 (2012)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tu, S.W., Campbell, J.R., Glasgow, J., Nyman, M.A., McClure, R., McClay, J., Parker, C., Hrabak, K.M., Berg, D., Weida, T., et al.: The sage guideline model: achievements and overview. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 14(5), 589–598 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceedings of ICLP-88, pp. 1070–1080 (1988)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mileo, A., Merico, D., Pinardi, S., Bisiani, R.: A logical approach to home healthcare with intelligent sensor-network support. Comput. J. 53(8), 1257–1276 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nogueira, M., Balduccini, M., Gelfond, M., Watson, R., Barry, M.: An A-Prolog decision support system for the Space Shuttle. In: Provetti, A., Son, T.C. (eds.) Answer Set Programming: Towards Efficient and Scalable Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. AAAI 2001 Spring Symposium Series, March 2001Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Riaño, D., Collado, A.: Model-based combination of treatments for the management of chronic comorbid patients. In: Peek, N., Marín Morales, R., Peleg, M. (eds.) AIME 2013. LNCS, vol. 7885, pp. 11–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    López-Vallverdú, J.A., Riaño, D., Collado, A.: Rule-based combination of comorbid treatments for chronic diseases applied to hypertension, diabetes mellitus and heart failure. In: Lenz, R., Miksch, S., Peleg, M., Reichert, M., Riaño, D., ten Teije, A. (eds.) ProHealth 2012 and KR4HC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7738, pp. 30–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Texas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  2. 2.Southeast UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations