Names in programming are vital for understanding the meaning of code and big data. We define code2brain (C2B) interfaces as maps in compilers and brains between meaning and naming syntax, which help to understand executable code. While working toward an Evolvix syntax for general‐purpose programming that makes accurate modeling easy for biologists, we observed how names affect C2B quality. To protect learning and coding investments, C2B interfaces require long‐term backward compatibility and semantic reproducibility (accurate reproduction of computational meaning from coder‐brains to reader‐brains by code alone). Semantic reproducibility is often assumed until confusing synonyms degrade modeling in biology to deciphering exercises. We highlight empirical naming priorities from diverse individuals and roles of names in different modes of computing to show how naming easily becomes impossibly difficult. We present the Evolvix BEST (Brief, Explicit, Summarizing, Technical) Names concept for reducing naming priority conflicts, test it on a real challenge by naming subfolders for the Project Organization Stabilizing Tool system, and provide naming questionnaires designed to facilitate C2B debugging by improving names used as keywords in a stabilizing programming language. Our experiences inspired us to develop Evolvix using a flipped programming language design approach with some unexpected features and BEST Names at its core.

Breast cancer is currently one of the main causes of death and tumoral diseases in women. Even if early diagnosis processes have evolved in the last years thanks to the popularization of mammogram tests, nowadays, it is still a challenge to have available reliable diagnosis systems that are exempt of variability in their interpretation. To this end, in this work, the design and development of an intelligent clinical decision support system to be used in the preventive diagnosis of breast cancer is presented, aiming both to improve the accuracy in the evaluation and to reduce its uncertainty. Through the integration of expert systems (based on Mamdani-type fuzzy-logic inference engines) deployed in cascade, exploratory factorial analysis, data augmentation approaches, and classification algorithms such as k-neighbors and bagged trees, the system is able to learn and to interpret the patient’s medical-healthcare data, generating an alert level associated to the danger she has of suffering from cancer. For the system’s initial performance tests, a software implementation of it has been built that was used in the diagnosis of a series of patients contained into a 130-cases database provided by the School of Medicine and Public Health of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which has been also used to create the knowledge base. The obtained results, characterized as areas under the ROC curves of 0.95–0.97 and high success rates, highlight the huge diagnosis and preventive potential of the developed system, and they allow forecasting, even when a detailed and contrasted validation is still pending, its relevance and applicability within the clinical field.

Abstract. Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) is a popular approach for learning rules for classification tasks. An important question is how to combine the individual rules to obtain a useful classifier. In some instances, converting each learned rule into a binary feature for a Bayes net learner improves the accuracy compared to the standard decision list approach [3,4,14]. This results in a two-step process, where rules are generated in the first phase, and the classifier is learned in the second phase. We propose an algorithm that interleaves the two steps, by incrementally building a Bayes net during rule learning. Each candidate rule is introduced into the network, and scored by whether it improves the performance of the classifier. We call the algorithm SAYU for Score As You Use. We evaluate two structure learning algorithms Naïve Bayes and Tree Augmented Naïve Bayes. We test SAYU on four different datasets and see a significant improvement in two out of the four applications. Furthermore, the theories that SAYU learns tend to consist of far fewer rules than the theories in the two-step approach.

Background The clinical decision-making process in pressure ulcer management is complex, and its quality depends on both the nurse's experience and the availability of scientific knowledge. This process should follow evidence-based practices incorporating health information technologies to assist health care professionals, such as the use of clinical decision support systems. These systems, in addition to increasing the quality of care provided, can reduce errors and costs in health care. However, the widespread use of clinical decision support systems still has limited evidence, indicating the need to identify and evaluate its effects on nursing clinical practice. Objective The goal of the review was to identify the effects of nurses using clinical decision support systems on clinical decision making for pressure ulcer management. Methods The systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations. The search was conducted in April 2019 on 5 electronic databases: MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CINAHL, without publication date or study design restrictions. Articles that addressed the use of computerized clinical decision support systems in pressure ulcer care applied in clinical practice were included. The reference lists of eligible articles were searched manually. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Results The search strategy resulted in 998 articles, 16 of which were included. The year of publication ranged from 1995 to 2017, with 45% of studies conducted in the United States. Most addressed the use of clinical decision support systems by nurses in pressure ulcers prevention in inpatient units. All studies described knowledge-based systems that assessed the effects on clinical decision making, clinical effects secondary to clinical decision support system use, or factors that influenced the use or intention to use clinical decision support systems by health professionals and the success of their implementation in nursing practice. Conclusions The evidence in the available literature about the effects of clinical decision support systems (used by nurses) on decision making for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment is still insufficient. No significant effects were found on nurses' knowledge following the integration of clinical decision support systems into the workflow, with assessments made for a brief period of up to 6 months. Clinical effects, such as outcomes in the incidence and prevalence of pressure ulcers, remain limited in the studies, and most found clinically but nonstatistically significant results in decreasing pressure ulcers. It is necessary to carry out studies that prioritize better adoption and interaction of nurses with clinical decision support systems, as well as studies with a representative sample of health care professionals, randomized study designs, and application of assessment instruments appropriate to the professional and institutional profile. In addition, long-term follow-up is necessary to assess the effects of clinical decision support systems that can demonstrate a more real, measurable, and significant effect on clinical decision making. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019127663; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=127663