Integrating ontologies and argumentation for decision-making in breast cancer

作者: M. H. Williams

DOI:

关键词:

摘要: This thesis describes some of the problems in providing care for patients with breast cancer. These are then used to motivate development an extension existing theory argumentation, which I call Ontology-based Argumentation Formalism (OAF). The work is assessed both theoretical and empirical ways. From a clinical perspective, there problem provision care. Numerous reports have noted failure provide uniformly high quality care, as well number deaths caused by medical medical profession has responded various ways, but one these been the development Decision Support Systems (DSS). evidence effectiveness such systems is mixed, and technical basis remains open debate. However, that been used argumentation. An important aspect practice use from trials, trials are based on results defined groups patients. Thus when we trials to reason about treatments, are two forms information interested - from trials relationships between treatments. relational can be captured ontology trials captured set defeasible rules. OAF argumentation system, provides an argumentation-based Knowledge Representation system could serve future DSS. In OAF, repository facts, asserted inferred formulae in ontology, defining language rules. rules used in process reasoning, where monotonic consistent chains reasoning draw plausible conclusions. generate arguments counter-arguments. Conflict terms inconsistent formulae by using existing proposals languages able make technologies for ontological reasoning. There three substantial areas novel work: I develop argumentation formalism, prove simple properties formalism. also formalism the practical syllogism related hypothetical compare my approach other proposals in literature. conclude case study cancer guideline, order to do so describe methodology comparing formal informal arguments, this discuss strengths weaknesses OAF. In order study, a prototype implementation. prototype uses incremental algorithm construct and I give soundness, completeness time-complexity results. final chapter discusses some general lessons OAF gives ideas work.

参考文章(91)
Katie Atkinson, Dan Cartwright, Political Engagement Through Tools for Argumentation computational models of argument. pp. 116- 127 ,(2008)
Gianfilippo Bertelli, Marco Venturini, Lucia Del Mastro, Ornella Garrone, Maurizio Cosso, Claudio Gustavino, Enzo Cusimano, Tiziana Guido, Guido Nicolò, Riccardo Rosso, Tamoxifen and the endometrium: findings of pelvic ultrasound examination and endometrial biopsy in asymptomatic breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. ,vol. 47, pp. 41- 46 ,(1998) , 10.1023/A:1005820115535
Holger Knublauch, Alan L. Rector, Mark A. Musen, Editing Description Logic Ontologies with the Protégé OWL Plugin. Description Logics. ,(2004)
Leila Amgoud, A unified setting for inference and decision: an argumentation-based approach uncertainty in artificial intelligence. pp. 26- 33 ,(2005)
Henry Prakken, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, Justifying Actions by Accruing Arguments. computational models of argument. pp. 247- 258 ,(2006)
A. P. Dawid, J. Mortera, Coherent Analysis of Forensic Identification Evidence Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological). ,vol. 58, pp. 425- 443 ,(1996) , 10.1111/J.2517-6161.1996.TB02091.X
Pancho Tolchinsky, Katie Atkinson, Peter McBurney, Sanjay Modgil, Ulises Cortés, Agents Deliberating over Action Proposals Using the ProCLAIM Model CEEMAS '07 Proceedings of the 5th international Central and Eastern European conference on Multi-Agent Systems and Applications V. pp. 32- 41 ,(2007) , 10.1007/978-3-540-75254-7_4
Sanjay Modgil, Michael Luck, Argumentation Based Resolution of Conflicts between Desires and Normative Goals dagstuhl seminar proceedings. pp. 19- 36 ,(2009) , 10.1007/978-3-642-00207-6_2