Advertisement

A theory of medical diagnosis as hypothesis refinement

  • Peter Lucas
Decision-Support Theories
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1211)

Abstract

In this paper, medical diagnosis is viewed as a two-stage process: medical knowledge is first interpreted in a diagnostic sense; next, observed findings are interpreted with respect to this interpreted knowledge and a given hypothesis, yielding a diagnosis. A new set-theoretical framework is introduced that captures this view of diagnosis; it is used to formalize various notions of diagnosis, those proposed in the literature included. Next, a new theory of flexible diagnosis, called refinement diagnosis, is proposed and defined in terms of this framework. Relationships with notions of diagnosis known from the literature are investigated.

Keywords

Sore Throat Diagnostic Problem General Subset General Diagnosis Evidence Function 
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.
    B.G. Buchanan and E.H. Shortliffe (1984). Rule-based Expert Systems: the MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Bylander, D. Allemang, M.C. Tanner and J.R. Josephson (1992). The computational complexity of abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 49, 25–60.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W.J. Clancey (1985). Heuristic classification. Artificial Intelligence, 27, 289–350.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Console, D. Theseider Dupré and P. Torasso (1989). A theory of diagnosis for incomplete causal models. In Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1311–1317.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Console and P. Torasso (1990). Integrating models of correct behaviour into abductive diagnosis. In Proceedings of EGAI'90, pp. 160–166.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K.L. Downing (1993). Physiological applications of consistency-based diagnosis. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 5, 9–30.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. de Kleer, A.K. Mackworth and R. Reiter (1992). Characterizing diagnoses and systems. Artificial Intelligence, 52, 197–222.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.J.F. Lucas (1996). Modelling interactions for diagnosis. In Proceedings of CESA'96 IMACS Multiconference: Modelling, Analysis and Simulation, 1, pp. 541–546, Lille, France.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Peng and J.A. Reggia (1990). Abductive inference models for diagnostic problem solving. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Poole (1990). A methodology for using a default and abductive reasoning system. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 5(5), 521–548.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W.F. Punch III, M.C. Tanner, J.R. Josephson and J.W. Smith (1990). PEIRCE: a tool for experimenting with abduction. IEEE Expert, 5(5), 34–44.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Reiter (1987). A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence, 32, 57–95.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Tuhrim, J. Reggia and S. Goodall (1991). An experimental study of criteria for hypothesis plausibility. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 3, 129–144.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T.D. Wu (1991). A problem decomposition method for efficient diagnosis and interpretation of multiple disorders. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 35, 239–250.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Lucas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUtrecht UniversityCH UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations