Advertisement

Multiparty Argumentation Game for Consensual Expansion Applied to Evidence Based Medicine

  • Stefano Bromuri
  • Maxime Morge
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7885)

Abstract

Evidence based medicine (EBM) requires many different sources of knowledge when dealing with complex patients. Such a discipline inherently involves the issue of conflicts arising amongst arguments coming from different sources, such as guidelines, trials and clinical studies. In this paper we consider a set of agents with their own medical argumentation which exchange medical arguments to enrich their own knowledge and suggest a set of treatments resulting from the argumentation process.

Keywords

Attack Move Rational Rule Argumentation Framework Medical Guideline Argumentation Process 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Timmermans, S., Mauck, A.: The promises and pitfalls of evidence-based medicine. Health Aff. (Millwood) 24(1), 18–28 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. KER 21, 163–188 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonzon, E., Maudet, N.: On the outcomes of multiparty persuasion. In: Proc. of AAMAS, IFAAMAS, pp. 47–54 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bromuri, S., Morge, M.: Multiparty argumentation game for consensual expansion. In: Proc. of ICAART, pp. 160–165. INSTICC Press (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hunter, A., Williams, M.: Aggregating evidence about the positive and negative effects of treatments. Artif. Intell. Med. 56, 173–190 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, S., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Marquis, P.: On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171, 730–753 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Studer, M., Briel, M., Leimenstoll, B., Glass, T.R., Bucher, H.C.: Effect of different antilipidemic agents and diets on mortality: A systematic review. Arch. Intern. Med. 165(7), 725–730 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bucher, H.C., Hengstler, P., Schindler, C., Meier, G.: N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in coronary heart disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am. J. Med. 112(4), 298–304 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larsson, S.C., Orsini, N.: Fish consumption and the risk of stroke: A dose-response meta-analysis. Stroke 42(12), 3621–3623 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Bromuri
    • 1
  • Maxime Morge
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Business Information SystemsUniversity of Applied Sciences Western SwitzerlandSwitzerland
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Informatique Fondamentale de LilleUniversité Lille 1France

Personalised recommendations