Using First-Order Logic to Represent Clinical Practice Guidelines and to Mitigate Adverse Interactions

  • Szymon WilkEmail author
  • Martin Michalowski
  • Xing Tan
  • Wojtek Michalowski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8903)


Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were originally designed to help with evidence-based management of a single disease and such single disease focus has impacted research on CPG computerization. This computerization is mostly concerned with supporting different representation formats and identifying potential inconsistencies in the definitions of CPGs. However, one of the biggest challenges facing physicians is the application of multiple CPGs to comorbid patients. While various research initiatives propose ways of mitigating adverse interactions in concurrently applied CPGs, there are no attempts to develop a generalized framework for mitigation that captures generic characteristics of the problem, while handling nuances such as precedence relationships. In this paper we present our research towards developing a mitigation framework that relies on a first-order logic-based representation and related theorem proving and model finding techniques. The application of the proposed framework is illustrated with a simple clinical example.


Duodenal Ulcer Clinical Practice Guideline Combine Therapy Theorem Prove Predicate Symbol 
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.



The last two authors were supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Collaborative Health Research Program) and Telfer School of Management Research Support Program. This research was conducted when Dr. Tan was a postdoctoral fellow with MET Research Group at the University of Ottawa.


  1. 1.
    Duftschmid, G., Miksch, S.: Knowledge-based verification of clinical guidelines by detection of anomalies. Artif. Intell. Med. 22(1), 23–41 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fox, J., Glasspool, D., Patkar, V., Austin, M., Black, L., South, M., Robertson, D., Vincent, C.: Delivering clinical decision support services: there is nothing as practical as a good theory. J. Biomed. Inform. 43, 831–843 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Isern, D., Moreno, A., Pedone, G., Sánchez, D., Varga, L.Z.: Home care personalisation with individual intervention plans. In: Riaño, D. (ed.) K4HelP 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5626, pp. 134–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jafarpour, B., Abidi, S.S.R.: Merging disease-specific clinical guidelines to handle comorbidities in a clinical decision support setting. In: Peek, N., Marín Morales, R., Peleg, M. (eds.) AIME 2013. LNCS, vol. 7885, pp. 28–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 (LNAI), vol. 7738, pp. 30–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCune, W.: Prover9 and Mace4 (2005).
  7. 7.
    Michalowski, M., Wilk, S., Lin, D., Michalowski, W., Tan, X., Mohapatra, S.: Procedural approach to mitigating concurrently applied clinical practice guidelines. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Expanding the Boundaries of Health Informatics Using Artificial Intelligence (HIAI13) (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Michalowski, M., Wilk, S., Michalowski, W., Lin, D., Farion, K., Mohapatra, S.: Using constraint logic programming to implement iterative actions and numerical measures during mitigation of concurrently applied clinical practice guidelines. In: Peek, N., Marín Morales, R., Peleg, M. (eds.) AIME 2013. LNCS, vol. 7885, pp. 17–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): NICE pathways (2014).
  10. 10.
    Otten, J.: leanCoP 2.0 and ileanCoP 1.2: high performance lean theorem proving in classical and intuitionistic logic (system descriptions). In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P., Dowek, G. (eds.) IJCAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5195, pp. 283–291. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pavlov, V., Schukin, A., Cherkasova, T.: Exploring automated reasoning in first-order logic: tools, techniques and application areas. In: Klinov, P., Mouromtsev, D. (eds.) KESW 2013. CCIS, vol. 394, pp. 102–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peleg, M.: Computer-interpretable clinical guidelines: a methodological review. J. Biomed. Inform. 46(4), 744–763 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peleg, M., Tu, S.W., Leonardi, G., Quaglini, S., Russo, P., Palladini, G., Merlini, G.: Reasoning with effects of clinical guideline actions using OWL: al amyloidosis as a case study. In: Riaño, D., ten Teije, A., Miksch, S. (eds.) KR4HC 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6924, pp. 65–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perez, B., Porres, I.: Authoring and verification of clinical guidelines: a model driven approach. J. Biomed. Inform. 43(4), 520–536 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Riaño, D., Real, F., Lopez-Vallverdu, J.A., Campana, F., Ercolani, S., Mecocci, P., Annicchiarico, R., Caltagirone, C.: An ontology-based personalization of health-care knowledge to support clinical decisions for chronically ill patients. J. Biomed. Inform. 45(3), 429–446 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenfeld, R., Shiffman, R.: Clinical practice guideline development manual: a quality-driven approach for translating evidence into action. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 140(6), 1–43 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sittig, D., Wright, A., Osheroff, J., Middleton, B., Teich, J., Ash, J., Campbell, E., Bates, D.: Grand challenges in clinical decision support. J. Biomed. Inform. 41, 387–392 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ten Teije, A., Marcos, M., Balser, M., van Croonenborg, J., Duelli, C., van Harmelen, F., Lucas, P., Miksch, S., Reif, W., Rosenbrand, K., Seyfang, A.: Improving medical protocols by formal methods. Artif. Intell. Med. 36(3), 193–209 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilk, S., Michalowski, W., Michalowski, M., Farion, K., Hing, M., Mohapatra, S.: Automatic mitigation of adverse interactions in pairs of clinical practice guidelines using constraint logic programming. J. Biomed. Inform. 46(2), 341–353 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang, H., Zhang, J.: MACE4 and SEM: a comparison of finite model generators. In: Bonacina, M.P., Stickel, M.E. (eds.) Automated Reasoning and Mathematics. LNCS, vol. 7788, pp. 101–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Szymon Wilk
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Michalowski
    • 2
  • Xing Tan
    • 3
  • Wojtek Michalowski
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Computing SciencePoznan University of TechnologyPoznanPoland
  2. 2.Adventium LabsMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Telfer School of ManagementUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations