In this section
@inproceedings{Cyras:2018,
author = {Cyras, K and Delaney, B and Prociuk, D and Toni, F and Chapman, M and Dominguez, J and Curcin, V},
pages = {14--22},
title = {Argumentation for explainable reasoning with conflicting medical recommendations},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/64331},
year = {2018}
}
TY - CPAPER
AB - Designing a treatment path for a patient suffering from mul-tiple conditions involves merging and applying multiple clin-ical guidelines and is recognised as a difficult task. This isespecially relevant in the treatment of patients with multiplechronic diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary dis-ease, because of the high risk of any treatment change havingpotentially lethal exacerbations. Clinical guidelines are typi-cally designed to assist a clinician in treating a single condi-tion with no general method for integrating them. Addition-ally, guidelines for different conditions may contain mutuallyconflicting recommendations with certain actions potentiallyleading to adverse effects. Finally, individual patient prefer-ences need to be respected when making decisions.In this work we present a description of an integrated frame-work and a system to execute conflicting clinical guidelinerecommendations by taking into account patient specific in-formation and preferences of various parties. Overall, ourframework combines a patient’s electronic health record datawith clinical guideline representation to obtain personalisedrecommendations, uses computational argumentation tech-niques to resolve conflicts among recommendations while re-specting preferences of various parties involved, if any, andyields conflict-free recommendations that are inspectable andexplainable. The system implementing our framework willallow for continuous learning by taking feedback from thedecision makers and integrating it within its pipeline.
AU - Cyras,K
AU - Delaney,B
AU - Prociuk,D
AU - Toni,F
AU - Chapman,M
AU - Dominguez,J
AU - Curcin,V
EP - 22
PY - 2018///
SP - 14
TI - Argumentation for explainable reasoning with conflicting medical recommendations
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/64331
ER -