Argumentation about Treatment Efficacy

  • Nikos Gorogiannis
  • Anthony Hunter
  • Vivek Patkar
  • Matthew Williams
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5943)


The volume and complexity of knowledge produced by medical research calls for the development of technology for automated management and analysis of such knowledge. In this paper, we identify scenarios where a researcher or a clinician may wish to use automated systems for analysing knowledge from clinical trials. For this, we propose a language for encoding, capturing and synthesising knowledge from clinical trials and a framework that allows the construction of arguments from such knowledge. We develop this framework and demonstrate its use on a case study regarding chemotherapy regimens for ovarian cancer.


Ovarian Cancer Trial Result Inference Rule Outcome Indicator Clinical Trial Result 
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.
    Kyrgiou, M., Salanti, G., Pavlidis, N., Paraskevaidis, E., Ioannidis, J.: Survival Benefits With Diverse Chemotherapy Regimens for Ovarian Cancer: Meta-analysis of Multiple Treatments. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98(22), 1655–1663 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patkar, V., Hurt, C., Steele, R., Love, S., Purushotham, A., Williams, M., Thomson, R., Fox, J.: Evidence-based guidelines and decision support services: a discussion and evaluation in triple assessment of suspected breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer 95(11), 1490–1496 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tolchinsky, P., Cortés, U., Modgil, S., Caballero, F., López-Navidad, A.: Increasing human-organ transplant availability: Argumentation-based agent deliberation. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21(6), 30–37 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sim, I., Owens, D., Lavori, P., Rennels, G.: Electronic trial banks: A complementary method for reporting randomized trials. Medical Decision Making 20(4), 440–450 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wyatt, J., Altman, D., Heathfield, H., Pantin, C.: Development of design-a-trial, a knowledge-based critiquing system for authors of clinical trial protocols. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 43(3-4), 283–291 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikos Gorogiannis
    • 1
  • Anthony Hunter
    • 1
  • Vivek Patkar
    • 2
  • Matthew Williams
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.University College London Cancer InstituteLondonUK
  3. 3.Mount Vernon Hospital, NorthwoodMiddlesexUK

Personalised recommendations