Development and evaluation of an open-source, standards-based approach to explainable artificial intelligence for managing co-morbidity and clinical guidelines using argumentation techniques and the Transition-based Medical Recommendation model.
Dominguez, J.; Prociuk, D.; Marovic, B.; Cyras, K.; Cocorascu, O.; Ruiz, F.; Mi, E.; Mi, E.; Ramtale, C.; Rago, A.; Darzi, A.; Toni, F.; Curcin, V.; Delaney, B. C.
Show abstract
I.A. ObjectiveClinical Decision Support (CDS) systems (CDSSs) that integrate clinical guidelines need to reflect real-world co-morbidity. In patient-specific clinical contexts, transparent recommendations that allow for contraindications and other conflicts arising from co-morbidity are a requirement. We aimed to develop and evaluate a non-proprietary, standards-based approach to the deployment of computable guidelines with explainable argumentation, integrated with a commercial Electronic Health Record (EHR) system in a middle-income country. B. Materials and MethodsWe used an ontological framework, the Transition-based Medical Recommendation (TMR) model, to represent, and reason about, guideline concepts, and chose the 2017 International Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guideline and a Serbian hospital as the deployment and evaluation site, respectively. To mitigate potential guideline conflicts, we used a TMR-based implementation of the Assumptions-Based Argumentation framework extended with preferences and Goals (ABA+G). Remote EHR integration of computable guidelines was via a microservice architecture based on HL7 FHIR and CDS Hooks. A prototype integration was developed to manage COPD with comorbid cardiovascular or chronic kidney diseases, and a mixed-methods evaluation was conducted with 20 simulated cases and five pulmonologists. C. ResultsPulmonologists agreed 97% of the time with the GOLD-based COPD symptom severity assessment assigned to each patient by the CDSS, and 98% of the time with one of the proposed COPD care plans. Comments were favourable on the principles of explainable argumentation; inclusion of additional co-morbidities were suggested in the future along with customisation of the level of explanation with expertise. D. ConclusionAn ontological model provided a flexible means of providing argumentation and explainable artificial intelligence for a long-term condition. Extension to other guidelines and multiple co-morbidities is needed to test the approach further. E. FundingThe project was funded by the British government through the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) - Global Challenges Research Fund.1
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating the impact on clinical task efficiency of a natural language processing algorithm for searching medical documents: Prospective crossover study 96%
- Transformative potential of Large Language Models in data mining on Electronic Health Records. 95%
- Is the quality of hospital EHR data sufficient to evidence its ICHOM outcomes performance in heart failure? A pilot evaluation 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Public attitudes towards the use of novel technologies in their future healthcare: A UK survey 92%
- Prediction of Unplanned 30- day Readmission for ICU Patients with Heart Failure 92%
- Development and Validation of ‘Patient Optimizer’ (POP) Algorithms for Predicting Surgical Risk with Machine Learning 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model Integrated with the Clinical Workflow for Inpatient Discharge Date Prediction 93%
- Large Language Models in Real-World Clinical Workflows: A Systematic Review of Applications and Implementation 92%
- Medical Clinical Minds Meet Artificial Intelligence: Italian Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Concordance between Italian Physicians and AI-Generated Diagnoses. A National Cross-Sectional Study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.